Evolution V Creationism?

[leibowde84]

On that note, how many people who accept evolution have actually pondered it and considered the evidence themselves?

I think that most have done at least a bit of pondering. I don't think it's really possible to understand the theory of evolution without doing a bit of thinking about the evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

in using your brain one might come to a position that blends creationism with evolution.

That's still creationism, just like blending the truth with a lie gives you a different lie, and blending contaminated food with clean food gives you more contaminated food.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The purpose of ridicule is to derail and prevent the discussion taking place because others opinions are not considered "worthy" of consideration.

Here are some alternate views on ridicule:

• Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon

• "Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke

• The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense! - Brian Cox

• "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss

• "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - Pat Condell

• "I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me. There's nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being, which your religion does with self righteous gusto. When it comes to insults your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut so would I. But given that it doesn't, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world. I'd say that not only do I have a right, but a duty to insult it, as does every rationale thinking person on this planet."

• "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion. I think it should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right". - Christopher Hitchens

• "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the reverse goes for getting atheists/scientists to accept creationism in that they have to accept evidence for god is possible, etc.

We already accept that evidence for gods is possible if one or more exist and aren't undetectable, but we require seeing that evidence to believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this evidence typically tends to be weaponised to make those who question evolution as intellectual or moral inferiors

Nobody is demeaning others for questioning what they do not understand if done in good faith and with the objective to learn. What we demean are those rejecting evolution without any understanding of its evidentiary foundation because it contradicts what they have chosen to believe without evidence. What value should be ascribed to such opinions?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science will look for a natural cause where as Religion will look for a supernatural one. Beyond the success of science to reproduce and utilise natural phenomena by discovering natural laws it is not clear why one methodology should be preferred.

How about because one has made our lives longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more interesting, and the other hasn't given us a single useful idea?

You remind me of this scene from the Life of Brian:

 

[Laika]

@It Aint Necessarily So

If religion involves a considerable portion of the emotional of a person's psychology- it has to be taken into account in trying to convince people of the truth. If we accept that religious faith could be "irrational"- we can expect the loss of religious faith to be at least partially irrational and that reasoned argument will not be the whole process of de-conversion. Ridicule is neither going to be effective at changing a person's mind, nor is it a humane way to help them learn to live without or to accept the loss of religious faith. If you tell someone "God is dead", there is going to be some hand-holding to do as they let go. My point is no more complicated than that.

 

[George-ananda]

That's still creationism,

Fine, I have no problem with that label either.

just like blending the truth with a lie gives you a different lie, and blending contaminated food with clean food gives you more contaminated food.

I wouldn't blend in what I thought was a lie.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@It Aint Necessarily So

If religion involves a considerable portion of the emotional of a person's psychology- it has to be taken into account in trying to convince people of the truth. If we accept that religious faith could be "irrational"- we can expect the loss of religious faith to be at least partially irrational and that reasoned argument will not be the whole process of de-conversion. Ridicule is neither going to be effective at changing a person's mind, nor is it a humane way to help them learn to live without or to accept the loss of religious faith. If you tell someone "God is dead", there is going to be some hand-holding to do as they let go. My point is no more complicated than that.

I'm not trying to "de-convert" anybody. Perhaps you misunderstand my purpose. I'm quite familiar with faith based thinking and have no expectation of making an impact there.

Personally, I seldom use ridicule, but I don't mind if others do. It's a legitimate method of criticism, friendlier than some.

I also don't tell people that God is dead. I tell them that I have no reason to believe in gods and therefore don't believe in any.