Should scientists debate creationists?

[Mozybyte]

...

 

[cyborg]

Nobody needs to use that many ellipses in a paragraph.

NOBODY.

 

[JoeEllison]

Sigh. I'm agnostic, so I'm not particularly offended by the idea that there is no god. I know people who do believe in pixies (yes, really, they believe in all sorts of 'spiritual beings' including fairies and leprechauns and dragons, but not unicorns - those are 'imaginary' ) and they would be offended by such comparisons.

The problem is that when you are trying to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong, this approach is counterproductive.

Isn't that a good reason to not debate creationists at all then?

 

[Meadmaker]

I find it difficult to believe that someone in our society who compares belief in god to belief in pixies isn't trying to offend. Strikes me as sorta like using the n-word to describe blacks and then claiming you aren't trying to offend.

Well put.

 

[articulett]

Well put.

And yet the evidence for both is the same. Why do we defer to the former? Why does "belief in god" get special status and protection?

 

[JoeEllison]

And yet the evidence for both is the same. Why do we defer to the former? Why does "belief in god" get special status and protection?

Because... ummmm... for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

 

[cyborg]

Because more people defer to god concepts than pixie concepts.

It is attained special deference merely by convention rather than merit.

 

[articulett]

Because more people defer to god concepts than pixie concepts.

It is attained special deference merely by convention rather than merit.

It's considered rude to say that the emperor's genitals are exposed... much better to exclaim over his imaginary clothes and never discuss genitals. Anything to avoid the actual topic. Vilify all those who dare to bring up "the big lie"... change the subject... make them the liars and bad guys--not the ones who claim to know that, not only does god exists, they know what he wants!

 

[Meadmaker]

Because more people defer to god concepts than pixie concepts.

It is attained special deference merely by convention rather than merit.

Yes. So, if you really want to get in someone's face, compare God to pixies.

And, if you really want to be offensive when discussing race relations, use the "n" word.


From an objective viewpoint, you could quite easily say that belief in God is like belief in pixies. And, from an objective viewpoint, the "n" word is just another descriptive word that describes people with generally dark skin. Nevertheless, I can't type the "n" word without violating rule 8.

If you wish to get someone to think, it isn't good to start by offending them. If you want to score points with your base, of course, then by all means talk about pixies and teacups and the like.

 

[cyborg]

Yes. So, if you really want to get in someone's face, compare God to pixies.

And, if you really want to be offensive when discussing race relations, use the "n" word.

I do so. It doesn't bother the people of African descent I talk with - mainly because they view the bullcrap of forbidden language much as I do.

You want forbidden language? Knock yourself out. I speak plainly as to how things are and your emotional objections to that are entirely irrelevant to me.

ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO ME.

From an objective viewpoint, you could quite easily say that belief in God is like belief in pixies. And, from an objective viewpoint, the "n" word is just another descriptive word that describes people with generally dark skin. Nevertheless, I can't type the "n" word without violating rule 8.

See above.

If you wish to get someone to think, it isn't good to start by offending them. If you want to score points with your base, of course, then by all means talk about pixies and teacups and the like.

See above.

 

[JJM]

It's considered rude to say that the emperor's genitals are exposed... much better to exclaim over his imaginary clothes and never discuss genitals. Anything to avoid the actual topic. {snip}

Arti, I can't believe you wrote the word "genitals." I blush. Isn't the proper term "genitalia?" As I recall, in the musical 1776, when Thomas Jefferson's wife sings praise of her husband's fiddle- it does not refer to a musical instrument. Maybe the emperor's people actually exclaimed over his (ahem) instrument, rather than his non-existant clothes.

 

[Meadmaker]

You want forbidden language? Knock yourself out. I speak plainly as to how things are and your emotional objections to that are entirely irrelevant to me.

ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO ME.

Methinks the cyborg doth protest a bit too much. I almost never feel the need to use bold letters to declare my disinterest, but that's just me. I don't have a great deal of evidence on which to base my opionion.

Regardless, what Beth was talking about was a debating tactic, not an objectively true fact. If a scientist chooses to debate a creationist, it seems likely that there will be some people in the audience who would be offended by the comparison of belief in God to belief in pixies. If your intent was to reach them, that particular comparison doesn't seem likely to win many converts.

After considering this issue, I finally voted yes to the OP. However, I would think you would have to be incredibly careful when doing so. I'm not sure how I would go about it, myself. I think that I would begin my opening statement with "The Heavens are telling the glory of God". It's from Psalms somewhere, and I would explain that if you believe in God, then it would seem that one way to learn the ways of God would be to learn the ways of creation, and then emphasize that the world appears to be very, very, old. If debating a YEC, I doubt I would go any farther. An ID advocate would require a variation on the tactics. I liked Shermer's emphasis of the different types of creationists in his debate.

 

[cyborg]

Methinks the cyborg doth protest a bit too much. I almost never feel the need to use bold letters to declare my disinterest, but that's just me.

The bold is for your benefit, not mine.

Regardless, what Beth was talking about was a debating tactic, not an objectively true fact. If a scientist chooses to debate a creationist, it seems likely that there will be some people in the audience who would be offended by the comparison of belief in God to belief in pixies. If your intent was to reach them, that particular comparison doesn't seem likely to win many converts.

Converting by appeals to emotion? I'll leave that to the religious thanks.

Unless I'm actually in a 'real' debate where the whole thing is just a game anyway and I'll often argue for things I don't personally believe for the fun of it.

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker,
your analogy fails. One word is an epithet. The other is simply treating all imaginary things alike... god, pixies, demons, etc. Astronomers don't debate astrologers. And creationists are not prone to reason anyhow. Making nice, never works. First you have to find somebody who actually wants the facts. If they have a vested interest in keeping their belief alive, why waste your time? And maybe people need to be provoked to think. Do you want to invest your life in believing in something that has no more evidence for it than fairies? Do you want others to?

And, JJM... yes... genitalia... thank you for correcting me... Did you see this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

Regarding Dawkins: His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

That's what I hear when the apologists speak. They will make the person pointing out the lie the bad guy... rather than address the big lie (or the dangling genitalia)....

 

[Meadmaker]

Converting by appeals to emotion? I'll leave that to the religious thanks.

It's not an appeal to emotion. It's avoiding turning people off as a result of emotion.

If you weren't so stupid, you'd see that.
(And, even with the smiley, I'll hasten to emphasize that I don't think cyborg is stupid. I'm illustrating my point the the sentence adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, but does ensure that I couldn't possibly gain a convert. When I compare belief in Pixies to belief in God, I'm basically calling the audience stupid, and guaranteeing that they won't listen to anything else I say. Never mind that I might be correct about their intelligence. )

Also, if I were involved, I would try to appeal, at least partly, to emotion.

I was thinking more of this, and I decided that the challenge to the scientist in these debates is not to convince people of the facts of evolution, but to convince them that there is a different way of thinking than the one to which they are accustomed. Some general approaches I would take.

1. Avoid pointing out the contradictions in the Bible. They've already made excuses for them. Instead, point out the omissions. The Bible doesn't really say anything about DNA, for example. The goal is to convince them that there are sources of knowledge that have been written even after the Book of Revelations.

2. Emphasize the wide variety of beliefs about creationism, and lack of agreement.

3. If debating a YEC, I would heap praise, as much as I could stand, anyway, on that scientific luminary Michael Behe, who disagrees with almost everything that a YEC has to say.

4. Also along those lines, demonstrate a familiarity with creationist "researchers", and celebrities of the creationist and ID community.

5. Encourage them that if they want to know anything about this theory of evolution thingy, they really ought to read a book by someone who believes in it, just for the purposes of knowing the enemy, if nothing else.

6. Emphasize that you are debating science, not religion, and do so by making sure they understand that there is nothing about evolution that is incompatible with religion.

7. Refer at least occasionally to Christianity and Islam, to put them in the same boat. Sure, it's an appeal to emotion, but if you are going to play that game, well, why not?


Of course, it might be just as effective to take exactly the opposite approach. Emphasize that you find them laughable, and are only there to speak to them because they are, unfortunately, allowed to vote in school board elections, so you have to do something about them. It wouldn't win any converts in the auditorium, but the coverage would probably be better.

My style would be "I have respect for you even if we disagree." Nevertheless, a case could be made for the opposite side.

 

[cyborg]

(And, even with the smiley, I'll hasten to emphasize that I don't think cyborg is stupid. I'm illustrating my point the the sentence adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, but does ensure that I couldn't possibly gain a convert.

Except since I don't really care about emotional back and forth it wouldn't affect my assessment of whatever idea you are presenting to me. Unless I didn't really care about whatever it was being presented.

When I compare belief in Pixies to belief in God, I'm basically calling the audience stupid,

Why can't I simply be making an analogy? ****, what if there are people in the audience who find comparing god to their pixie belief insulting?

Too loaded with assumptions about how the audience might react. And maybe it's good to get people to react negatively too - when it feels bad to have your stupidity pointed out to you either you seek to avoid having it challenged or avoid having your stupidity.

 

[Beth]

Except since I don't really care about emotional back and forth it wouldn't affect my assessment of whatever idea you are presenting to me. Unless I didn't really care about whatever it was being presented.

Very few people are immune to the simply human tendency to give greater weight and credence to people who respect you and less to those who don't.

Why can't I simply be making an analogy? ****, what if there are people in the audience who find comparing god to their pixie belief insulting?

You can, of course, post anything you like. Whether or not the fact that this is a public place where anyone who cares to can listen in has any bearing on what you write is your concern alone.

I find it an offensive way to phrase your opinion of other's people's religious beliefs. It's why I would never direct someone like my uncle, an intelligent retired farmer who was born and raised in Oklahoma, to this forum. He might enjoy yanking a few people's chains for a while, but eventually he'd get tired of that and quit. He wouldn't take anyone's opinion seriously if they compared belief god to belief in pixies. It's like comparing the Pacific ocean to a mudpuddle.

So, go ahead, post as offensively as you like. That's all some people are here for. I usually put them on ignore. And I never suggest to any creationist I know that they might come here for information if they're interested.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes. So, if you really want to get in someone's face, compare God to pixies.

And, if you really want to be offensive when discussing race relations, use the "n" word.


From an objective viewpoint, you could quite easily say that belief in God is like belief in pixies. And, from an objective viewpoint, the "n" word is just another descriptive word that describes people with generally dark skin. Nevertheless, I can't type the "n" word without violating rule 8.

If you wish to get someone to think, it isn't good to start by offending them. If you want to score points with your base, of course, then by all means talk about pixies and teacups and the like.

Wow, that's an incredibly faulty comparison. Of course, knowing that you have a silly belief, and having it pointed out to you, is going to cause an overly emotional response. That doesn't mean that the belief isn't silly, or that it deserves any respect.

 

[JoeEllison]

It's like comparing the Pacific ocean to a mudpuddle.

No, it is like comparing two mud puddles, except that an awful lot of people pretend that mud puddle is an ocean. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it upsets you to have that fact pointed out to you, is hardly anyone's fault.

 

[cyborg]

Very few people are immune to the simply human tendency to give greater weight and credence to people who respect you and less to those who don't.

Count me among the few. I like to be challenged.

I find it an offensive way to phrase your opinion of other's people's religious beliefs.

I'm sorry I insulted your pixie belief by insinuating it could be anything like as stupid as god belief.

He wouldn't take anyone's opinion seriously if they compared belief god to belief in pixies. It's like comparing the Pacific ocean to a mudpuddle.

No, it's really not. Hell, some gods were promoted from pixies.

Only ignorance of the development of superstitious ideas can lead one to believe that the modern nebulous views of god are really distinct from pixie belief. But there you go.