Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
146 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,776 Year: 2,524/23,288 Month: 715/1,809 Week: 147/225 Day: 6/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 182 (628654)
08-11-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
08-07-2011 11:03 PM


They need to understand what's happening in the real world in order to deal with very real problems.

Do they really have a need to understand?

Generally speaking, most people don't understand what's happening in the real world, and for the the most part they get along just fine. If that means they make poor decisions about economics, global warming, when to go to the doctor, or who to vote for, then so be it.

People who insist that Genesis literally describes how creation happened are just fine not becoming scientists, so scientific reality simply does not intrude on any activity they have any desire to take part in.

The bottom line for most fundamentalists is that evolution, big bang cosmology, geology, paleontology, etc. are completely wrong about everything. Why scientists are in those fields are wrong scarcely matters, so if it turns out that some easy to believe explanation of why they are wrong is incorrect, then the correct explanation, which they would barely understand is out there. Digging to far into things may risk a Faustian outcome.

Further fundamentalism comes with the ultimate rebuttal. From 1 Corinthians 3:18-20:

quote:
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.


So yeah, the empirical evidence may show something, but a fundamentalist can cite the verses above and others if needed to simply dismiss such evidence.

For those few fundamentalist that deal with addressing creation/evolution topics in a scientific fashion, I believe that many of them are not simply willfully ignorant. Many of them are simply dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 08-07-2011 11:03 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 08-11-2011 11:57 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 12:39 AM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 182 (628695)
08-12-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by hooah212002
08-12-2011 12:39 AM


hooah212002 writes:

NoNukes writes:

Do they really have a need to understand?

In MY opinion, yes, since they procreate. It benefits humankind. The less ignorant people we have running around, the better.

Sounds like you have a need for others to understand. But do those people you are talking about share that need? I'm suggesting that they don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 12:39 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 10:58 AM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 34 of 182 (628710)
08-12-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
08-11-2011 11:57 PM


OK. So how do we keep them from screwing up science education for the rest of us? And for their kids after they deconvert.

We have a fight on our hands.

We should probably expect to see more court battles about science education. Our only real armor is the First Amendment and the fear of the great expense involved in losing a first amendment case. Congress has come close on several occasions to passing laws that would remove the monetary penalties and lawyer fee awards for losing "religious freedom" first amendment cases. Republicans generally hate the ACLU. If such laws are ever enacted, expect more school systems to take on the risk.

If there is popular sentiment on the side of science education, it is not a strong majority. Apparently we live in a country in which there is a remarkably low acceptance of evolution. In many school systems, the sentiment is decidedly anti-evolution.

So far we've been fortunate that school boards and state legislators who have come up with these anti-science curricula have been fairly outspoken outside of the courtroom about their unconstitutional agenda. The more recent batch of laws are phrased as attempts to protect academic freedom, and the evidence of a purpose to promote religion may be a bit harder to find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 08-11-2011 11:57 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 182 (628712)
08-12-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by hooah212002
08-12-2011 10:58 AM


Are you saying you do not see that need?

I'm saying that the need you perceive belongs to you and people like you. It is not a need felt by the people you want to change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 10:58 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2011 11:19 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 182 (628749)
08-12-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
08-12-2011 1:44 PM


Re: I think I see his point
The prime directive is probably the worst idea conjured up by the creator of star trek. Such a directive is the ultimate excuse for someone to be heartless.

I don't think we can blame it all on Gene. In the original series, the prime directive was broken fairly regularly, and I cannot recall any consequences when Kirk did so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 08-12-2011 1:44 PM Taz has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 182 (628914)
08-13-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Minnemooseus
08-13-2011 10:00 AM


Re: Willful ignorance beyond things creationism
What I find more troubling is that the willfully ignorant creationists seem to be to a large degree the same people that are willfully ignorant etc. concerning other issues. They seem to be prominent in global warming denialism and, in general, denialism of man's adverse environmental impacts.

I agree with you about the alarming correlation with denialism, but I don't think willful ignorance is the issue. Coming to an informed opinion on climate change, for example, based on a personal review of the evidence is pretty difficult for laypeople, even technically trained ones. There are plenty of "experts" on both sides of the issue, so most people decide what to believe using unscientific means. Not surprisingly, most laypeople form a decision that is pretty much aligned with their other beliefs. For some people the fact that Al Gore won a Nobel Prize is enough to convince them that there ain't no man-made climate change.

But yeah, the denial trifecta, (denying HIV/AIDs, evolution, and global warming while believing in global conspiracy theories surrounding all three) is pretty common, and disturbing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-13-2011 10:00 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020