Which side is being brainwashed?

Lately there seems to be a few posters that believe evolutionary theories would not exist if people were not brainwashed into believing them. At the same time, they hold creationist theories as being indicative of reality. This is my opinion of how both sides come to the opinions they hold and the effects "brainwashing" has on both.Creationists: They are told at a young age that God created the Earth because the Bible is infallible and inerrant in its literal form. They do not come to this conclusion on their own through investigation of the natural world, but rather through trust in people they respect and emotional gratification that comes through worship. IMO, there doesn't seem to be any intention to brainwash people, but setting up a pre-existing faith before interpretation of the natural world seems to be the MO. Evidence is then bent to fit a pre-existing belief in an attempt to justify the belief. Evidence that contradicts the belief is ignored or attacked philisophically while ignoring the emipirical signifigance. The furthering of this theory depends on conversion alone. If christianity disappeared today the theory would die with it. I am not saying that christianity should disappear, but rather the theory depends on religious indoctrination and propagation of the faith.Evolutionists: They come to an interpretation of the natural world without a pre-existing assumption other than shared observations can be trusted. Exposure to the theory can or does occur before exposure to evidence. However, the evidence that the theory is based upon is available to everyone for their own interpretation. The fact that people of every religious faith and athiests alike agree with the interpretation within the theory of evolution speaks to its fairness and agnostic position. If every last page containing evolutionary writing were destroyed today and everyones mind was wiped clean, the theory could still be reconstructed through the same observations that support the theory today. Evolution does not depend on pre-existing beliefs or propagation of the theory. Rather, it depends solely on observation of the natural world which will always be available.The question becomes, who depends on ingraining a belief system, creationists or evolutionists? I would argue creationists have much more at stake in "converting people to their fold". Without conversion creationist theories would have no basis. Evolution, on the other hand, could be reconstructed separately from a belief system and without conversion and therefore does not need "brainwashing" in order to exist.On a side note: I am using brainwashing as a loosely defined term and is not to be taken as an insult to either side.

I honestly think that any instances of accustations such as these are textbook cases of projection stemming from deeply rooted insecurities in the accuser. They seek to convince themselves that their opposition's position is on equal footing as their own by judging the opposition as they have already judged themselves."If you would like to know what you think of yourself, ask yourself what you think of others, and you will have your answer." ~Seth.

Creationists have a vested interest in blurring the distinction between philosophy and methodology. To paraphrase Quetzal, philosophy can't tell us how things work, but methodology can. Regardless of someone's personal philosophy, their approach to scientific methodology has to be objective. Otherwise it's not scientific.The accusation of 'naturalistic bias' is easily refuted by the fact that scientific researchers come from every conceivable philosophical and religious background. If the accusation were true, all scientists would be atheists, and that's not what we see. Since for the creationist there's no difference between philosophy and methodology, however, the charge of 'materialistic brainwashing' arises. The desperation of this tactic never fails to shock me.The creationist's honest belief that the success of evolutionary theory is solely due to atheism has a more practical application, especially here at EvC. If the creationist encounters arguments centered around philosophical differences, he can always claim that such things are only matters of opinion. Then, when he encounters arguments supported by evidence, he can claim that all such things are meaningless since the evidence is being interpreted through a naturalistic worldview. For people who supposedly believe in eternal, objective truth, they like how they look in the postmodern hat every so often.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I was raised to be a fundamentalist, with a strict literal Bible interpretation. I remember getting confused at about age 4 when my dinosaur books (which I always loved - was first caught reciting names at about 18 months) told me the earth was old. I asked my trustworthy dad, who told me it was about 2000 years. In retrospect, that doesn't even make sense for a YEC... but whatever. That incident aside, I wouldn't say that I was really force-fed YEC doctrine, but I was led to believe that the "wishy-washy liberal churches" that didn't believe in a literal Genesis were *gasp* little better than Catholics, and that non-literalist faith might as well be no faith, for all the good it did. These admonitions, coupled with quite a bit of misinformation, kept me from even looking at all the contradictory evidence. I think I (like many others) was genuinely afraid of being convinced of the validity of the ToE, and thus avoided the facts.I guess the most relevant fact (with regard to your question) is that I never needed to be convinced of evolution... my natural curiosity led me to the facts as soon as I lost the commitment to literalism. I'd have to say that creationism depends far more on conditioning and emotional factors than actual learning and honest attempts to inform oneself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, exists primarily because of the latter factors, and has prevailed largely in spite of the conditioning that people received.

Well as I understand it, there ceases to be any sides... now only pandemonium; the christians killed their God by pittying him on the cross. That ultimate act of abasement reversed all that stood, for how could the creator of all be pitied by his own creation that killed him?Now only the shadow remains, and still thousands of years later mourners worship at his shadow and his memory. Jesus was a man, and the idea of him being a god died with him.

I think this whole "naturalistic worldview" argument, as used by Creationists, is deliberate obscurantism, not to mention complete gibberish. It doesn't offer any model on how a supernaturalistic worldview is supposed to operate. What does it mean to say that an observation can be explained by a "supernatural" cause (i.e one which supposedly doesn't obey the laws of nature??).Surely there's a contradiction there, as the laws of nature are defined for us by what we observe. A supernatural event, by its very definition, could not actually affect nature, or it would become natural.I'm not entirely sure what the alternatives for a naturalistic worldview are, and what the alternatives are. I think, in the context its meant for, the "naturalistic worldview" boils down to humans making our own (admittedly fallible) observations and following the evidence no matter where it leads rather than trusting someone just because they've got a collar / beard / saxophone (possibly unscrupulous or insane) and fixing the observations to match some pre-required warm tummy outcome.PE (BS)------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will butchered once I get my old one back.[This message has been edited by PE's been savaged, 12-12-2003]

Well, in the methodological naturalism thread Syamsu listed a bunch of words. However, when asked to explain, he sort of forgot what they meant.

Before the following were discovered to exist, anyone claiming their existence would've been considered nuts:1. Microwaves
2. Nuclear energy
3. Microscopic and submicroscopic stuff
4. Lazer beams
5. Radio waves
6. wireless communications of all kinds.
7. etc, etc.So when are you peeples gona come to recognize what many of us have already discovered............ THE SUPERNATURAL?

​

------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Buz,I don't get you. All the examples you've listed are of things which oncehadn't been discovered but are either in themselves natural or man-made. In any event, they all leave measurable traces in the natural world.What has this got to do with the supernatural? Are you really saying that the supernatural is just the natural waiting to be discovered?Or do you think there is something else that puts the "super" into "supernatural"?PE (BS)

The natural involves unseen natural inanimate powers, forces, etc. The unseen supernatual involves the spirit world of unseen animate beings which exist which are actually capable if entering human bodies. These are powerful beings, both evil and good which also may involve powers, forces, etc.Secularistic science spends big $$ listening to some stray beep, blip or bloop from space and come up empty, all the while those of us who are spiritually minded have seen and experienced the effects of the supernatural, both of the good and the evil kingdoms.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-12-2003]

quote:

---

Secularistic science spends big $$ listening to some stray beep, blip or bloop from space and come up empty,

---

You're referring to SETI. SETI isn't mainstream science.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

...and SETI doesn't spend anything like what we would usually call "big" $. (it is, I think, some few million a year -- a small wager for large potential payoff)

Rei writes:

quote:

---

SETI isn't mainstream science.

---

Now, I wouldn't say that. The methodology of SETI is all quite mundane. Absolutely no claims are made about the likelihood of finding any communication and all the work that has been done by SETI is predicated by their direct claim that they know they are looking for a needle in a haystack and that their methods will only find specific types of needles which may not be what is actually out there. They don't even claim that they expect to find a deliberate communication. They simply realize that there is a distinct possibility that a non-terrestrial civilization may have had some of its radio communications travel across space and wind up in a place where we might be able to hear them. That isn't such an earth-shattering idea. Our own planet has been leaking out to the universe. In fact, we deliberately sent a message to M13 at the initiation of the Arecibo telescope back in 1974. Ironically, by the time the message gets there, 25,000 years from now, M13 won't be there to hear it.It isn't cutting edge or even controversial in its science. It really is basic physics with a massive amount of data to slog through. The only thing "controversial" about it is the subject matter leading people to wonder why anybody would spend money on a project that will most likely not succeed and even if it did, would be very difficult to verify and wouldn't result in any real outcome other than what is already generally considered a distinct possibility: We are not alone in the universe but man are we isolated.Oh, it doesn't get a lot of respect, I'll grant you, but lack of respect does not make something out of the mainstream.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Quote:The natural involves unseen natural inanimate powers, forces, etc. The unseen supernatual involves the spirit world of unseen animate beings which exist which are actually capable if entering human bodies. These are powerful beings, both evil and good which also may involve powers, forces, etc.Question:Which side of this brain is being washed?

quote:

---

The natural involves unseen natural inanimate powers, forces, etc.

---

So, if I am not mistaken, the natural, as you define it, does not include any biology whatsoever?The problem with understanding the supernatural is that once we understand it, it moves into the natural. Giving an explanation of something as supernatural does not explain anything and, I believe, even worse, stops all inquiry right there. Which is why we learned so little in the "Dark Ages".