Should scientists debate creationists?

[Dr Adequate]

And I must say, that I have never seen a creationist change their view... nice or not. I'd have to find a former creationist and listen to what it was that got them thinking.

Well apparently employing them as professional geologists will do it, but there aren't enough jobs to go round.

 

[Beth]

It doesn't really matter, though, how "cherished" someone's beliefs are. We go around debunking "cherished beliefs" all the time. The religious ones, though, seem to demand special, unwarranted protection. I see that as a major problem.

No one here is demanding special unwarranted protection for people's beliefs. I'm saying that you can debunk such beliefs without being deliberately offensive and derogatory. Just as you can disagree with a black person regarding the efficacy of affirmative action without using the n-word and coming across as a racist bigot, so too you can tell a christian that you don't think the bible is the literal truth without mocking them and coming across as a religious bigot. If you choose to do so anyway, that is your perogative, just as it is your perogative to use racial ephithets when discussing AA. But if you choose to communicate in that fashion, the fact that most people aren't going to take your opinion seriously is not only not a major problem, I don't even see it as a legitimate complaint.

 

[pgwenthold]

No one here is demanding special unwarranted protection for people's beliefs. I'm saying that you can debunk such beliefs without being deliberately offensive and derogatory.

Begging the question, Beth.

Why is comparing belief in pixies to belief in god derogatory?

 

[JoeEllison]

Begging the question, Beth.

Why is comparing belief in pixies to belief in god derogatory?

That's a good question. After all, it isn't like anyone used the "s-word".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Begging the question, Beth.

Why is comparing belief in pixies to belief in god derogatory?

Because belief in pixies is almost universally considered to be silly whereas belief in god is not.

Pixies are creatures, they are created. God is not. Pixies are considered local incarnations while god is universal. This is similar to the mistake in discussing the ontological argument using the idea of perfections. The idea of a particular incarnation -- perfect island -- cannot be equated with the univeral ideal, perfection, which is supposed to be God.

It depends quite a bit on what conception of god/gods is being discussed of course.

 

[Beth]

Begging the question, Beth.

Why is comparing belief in pixies to belief in god derogatory?

Ichneumonwasp answered that fairly well. I used the analogy of comparing the Pacific ocean with a mudpuddle earlier. At any rate, why it is considered derogatory isn't any more of an issue to me than why the n-word considered derogatory in a discussion of affirmative action. My point is that it is perceived that way.

 

[JoeEllison]

Because belief in pixies is almost universally considered to be silly whereas belief in god is not.

Pixies are creatures, they are created. God is not. Pixies are considered local incarnations while god is universal. This is similar to the mistake in discussing the ontological argument using the idea of perfections. The idea of a particular incarnation -- perfect island -- cannot be equated with the univeral ideal, perfection, which is supposed to be God.

It depends quite a bit on what conception of god/gods is being discussed of course.

In other words, there's absolutely no reason to treat the two beliefs as anything other than identical.

 

[pgwenthold]

Because belief in pixies is almost universally considered to be silly whereas belief in god is not.

So it is that, "When one person believes something silly, we call it delusion. When a lot of people believe it, we call it religion"?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ichneumonwasp answered that fairly well. I used the analogy of comparing the Pacific ocean with a mudpuddle earlier. At any rate, why it is considered derogatory isn't any more of an issue to me than why the n-word considered derogatory in a discussion of affirmative action. My point is that it is perceived that way.

From the outside, it is pretty obvious that you're asking for special treatment for no other reason than it is your belief.

 

[JoeEllison]

So it is that, "When one person believes something silly, we call it delusion. When a lot of people believe it, we call it religion"?

That's what it appears to boil down to. Frankly, it offends me, because it is a complete 100% cheat.

 

[Beth]

From the outside, it is pretty obvious that you're asking for special treatment for no other reason than it is your belief.

It may be obvious to you, but it's also incorrect. I'm agnostic. If I objected to someone using the n-word in explaining why they object to affirmative action, would you presume I was black?

 

[JoeEllison]

It may be obvious to you, but it's also incorrect. I'm agnostic.

LOL, sure. I'm so totally sure. And Bill O'Reilly is an independent.

 

[JoeEllison]

It may be obvious to you, but it's also incorrect. I'm agnostic. If I objected to someone using the n-word in explaining why they object to affirmative action, would you presume I was black?

No, but I'm going to assume that you're going to continue to pretend that racism has any real comparison to what we're talking about.

*throws arms up*

 

[Beth]

LOL, sure. I'm so totally sure. And Bill O'Reilly is an independent.

You can believe whatever you like of course. People have delusions about all sorts of things, religion is only one. If you want to hold delusions about me, that is your perogative. Just don't mistake it for reality. I've been an agnostic since I was 17 and found out there was word that described how I felt about God.

I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, so that analogy is pretty much wasted on me. I've no idea how much of an independent he is.

No, but I'm going to assume that you're going to continue to pretend that racism has any real comparison to what we're talking about.

*throws arms up*

Sigh. As you like. I find racism is comparible in the sense that it's well-established that certain words are offensive. Why do you think it isn't comparable? Because people can change their beliefs but not the color of their skin? Would the analogy of calling Republicans facists be better? If I object to that, would you assume I'm a Republican

 

[JoeEllison]

If someone believes that gremlins on flying unicorns drag the sun across the sky, it is going to offend them when you point out anything negative about that belief. Offending them isn't the intent, but it is going to happen anyway. More popular religious beliefs are NO DIFFERENT than the flying unicorn thing. Pointing that fact out is also going to be offensive to some people... but it isn't the intent then either.

 

[Meadmaker]

LOL, sure. I'm so totally sure. And Bill O'Reilly is an independent.

One guaranteed way to lose any debate is to tell the person on the other side of the debate what they believe.

 

[JoeEllison]

One guaranteed way to lose any debate is to tell the person on the other side of the debate what they believe.

The guaranteed way to "win" the debate is to make any meaningful debate off-limits, which is what you and Beth seem to advocate.

 

[Meadmaker]

If someone believes that gremlins on flying unicorns drag the sun across the sky, it is going to offend them when you point out anything negative about that belief.

Actually, if someone really believed that, it would not be offensive to compare that belief to belief in God. The key difference is that when you compare belief in God to belief in Pixies, you are comparing their belief to something that no one actually believes.

(To be fair, I've met people who believed in pixies. Weird folks. Very weird.)

(inspired, begins thinking out loud)

When you compare belief in God to belief in pixies, what you are saying to the believer is that his beliefs, which are shared by the majority of people with whom he interacts on a day to day basis, at church, home, work and elsewhere, are identical to the beliefs held by those very strange people who talk to themselves on streetcorners.

From a strictly rational view of the beliefs themselves, you are right. However, the simple matter is that most people who believe in God are intelligent, rational, good citizens, while most people who believe in Pixies are strange folks who can't hold down a job and never really seem to grow up. That's what makes the comparisons offensive.

 

[pgwenthold]

Sigh. As you like. I find racism is comparible in the sense that it's well-established that certain words are offensive. Why do you think it isn't comparable? Because people can change their beliefs but not the color of their skin? Would the analogy of calling Republicans facists be better? If I object to that, would you assume I'm a Republican

That would only be true if Republicans actually were facist, which, even though they have certain things in common, is not true. The objection to calling Republicans facist would not boil down to "there are a lot more Republicans than facists."

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually, if someone really believed that, it would not be offensive to compare that belief to belief in God. The key difference is that when you compare belief in God to belief in Pixies, you are comparing their belief to something that no one actually believes.

(To be fair, I've met people who believed in pixies. Weird folks. Very weird.)

(inspired, begins thinking out loud)

When you compare belief in God to belief in pixies, what you are saying to the believer is that his beliefs, which are shared by the majority of people with whom he interacts on a day to day basis, at church, home, work and elsewhere, are identical to the beliefs held by those very strange people who talk to themselves on streetcorners.

From a strictly rational view of the beliefs themselves, you are right. However, the simple matter is that most people who believe in God are intelligent, rational, good citizens, while most people who believe in Pixies are strange folks who can't hold down a job and never really seem to grow up. That's what makes the comparisons offensive.

So, you concede that it is an accurate comparison?