I like Twitter because it shows me posts and discussions like this one. The post is called “Confrontation All The Way” and describes the need to promote science for the benefit of our future, and to fight against the misinformation spread by certain religious groups.
I haven’t read the whole thing but I think I know where it’s going. I pick on this point in particular:
“The solution, the only longterm solution, is the sanity of secularism.”
And obviously there’s a lot about rationality in there as well. The problem with this approach, in my opinion, is that the author is attempting to, using the brain, persuade people who only listen to their hearts. There is a reason why some people naturally follow science and others naturally ignore it and I believe it is this heart/brain divide that Professor Myers is (ironically) ignoring.
Professor Myers is a biologist, and I study behavioural economics – obviously evolution is an extremely important topic for both of us. However, there are an innumerable number of professions in the world for which the theory of evolution is entirely unimportant. If I had stayed within the confines of mathematics, there would be absolutely no need for me to be familiar with the theory of evolution and thousands of years of advances in the field of mathematics bear witness to that. One can’t argue, however, that there have been advances in the fields of economics and especially biology that could have come about without knowledge of evolution. Perhaps it’s for this reason that biologists such as Myers, and indeed Richard Dawkins, can’t comprehend and in fact get quite angry at the idea that anyone would suggest that evolution is false.
For these guys I recommend you take a step back and realise that there are at least two ways of accepting something is true – with the brain, and with the heart. You can’t force people to think with their brains. You may disagree with this but as long as you do you will continue to lose this fight. Belligerently trying to force the theory of evolution down people’s throats like some ill-thought-through dogma isn’t going to work because you never explain why people need to know it, and actually the vast majority of people don’t need to know it. The next logical point to make is that “well, if they don’t believe in evolution then they invariably believe in creationism, which we know is wrong”. As long as the biologists, economists, et al do accept evolution, this isn’t such a big threat. Those for whom the difference between creationism and evolution isn’t so big (for example, if they stubbornly believe that they’re simply differences of opinion) you’re going to need to take a softer approach. In order to get these people on your side, I’m afraid you’re going to have to swallow that bitter pill and accept that believing in evolution – for the majority of people – isn’t so important. Hold back your ire! This is step one. Yes, there will be a lot of sniping from the creationist fundamentalists, but if you can accede that for most people the difference is not so big, people are more likely to listen to what you have to say. Once they’re willing to listen to what you have to say, then you can present your evidence.
On the subject of creationism and evidence, I did have a look at the website for the new Centre for Intelligent Design – who claim to give scientific credence to the notion of intelligent design – and went straight to the bit where they give evidence for their point of view.
It’s astounding. I particularly love this bit: “The idea that information of this complexity could randomly self-assemble stretches credulity to the limit.”
What they’re saying is essentially “Since I can’t imagine it, it must not be real”. It’s kind of cute in a way. For example, I could use the same logic to say “I can’t imagine the lives of more than 100,000 people (and that’s being quite optimistic), therefore there can’t be more than 100,000 people on the planet”. If I’ve got the basis of this logic wrong, please tell me, but I think that’s basically it.
I guess in summary what I’m saying is, many people don’t need to believe in evolution so please don’t act like they do. This is perhaps the most important step you can take in this specific fight. Secondly, it’s clear that the biggest names in the “opposition” constantly make serious mistakes (as I’ve mentioned above), but it’s not the mistakes in science you should be focusing on. Many of the people you’re trying to reach won’t have a scientific background, so you should focus on the logical mistakes. Point out the mistakes that clearly can’t be right from a point of view that anyone can relate to.
I’ll finish with a pet peeve of mine that I think is perfect to round this post off. Try and convince someone that the Sun goes round the Earth and watch them shout you down to correct you. Pretty much everyone will. Then, once you’ve conceded, ask them why it’s important to know that it is in fact the Earth that goes round the Sun and not the other way around. Most people won’t give you a satisfactory answer for this and probably won’t even try. “Everyone knows the Earth goes round the Sun” they may insist. The reason why it’s important is that it makes astronomy and inter-planetary travel far, far easier than taking the alternative assumption. It’s technically not completely wrong to say the Sun goes round the Earth but it really doesn’t make any sense to do so. Now, if you’re someone who is dedicated to making people believe in evolution, keep this example in mind. The creationists believe the Sun goes round the Earth, so to speak, and, empirically, this is not immediately obviously wrong. If you can’t give a reason that these people are going to accept, if you can’t explain why it’s important that evolution is the correct version of events, why should they even care?
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 27, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Ben Austin
“What they’re saying is essentially “Since I can’t imagine it, it must not be real”. It’s kind of cute in a way. For example, I could use the same logic to say “I can’t imagine the lives of more than 100,000 people (and that’s being quite optimistic), therefore there can’t be more than 100,000 people on the planet”.” – oh, I did laugh so much at that
And, I think you’ve not missed their point – their ‘argument’ centres on credulity, not evidence, like the Miller-Urey experiments.
You’ve got me thinking though, Chris. I was doing well in reclusion from man’s insanity, but you had to go and get my brain functioning again, didn’t you? You utter, thinking bastard.
You are right that there are some people whom, strictly speaking, don’t Need to believe in evolution. However, beliefs exist – and form – in context, and the contexts do usually matter. Religious communities are bound by their superstitions, and their influence socially has obvious problems; and then there’s the wider problem of the influence of heuristic thinking trumping rational thinking. Ultimately, the evolution/creationism debacle only continues because of religious bodies perpetuating their myths and demanding unwarranted degrees of respect in law, and those religious bodies routinely specifically state that belief in creation matters. That’s the critical difference – it’s precisely because of their political and social influence and demand that belief in creationism matters, that cognitive-punches of reason matter. I do wish that religious bodies would kindly, meekly and most compassionately self-immolate themselves.
I think the person who both believes creationism and is not a member of a religious organisation – or even someone who just gives undue tolerance to religious interference in society – is somewhat of an anomaly. I could be wrong!
Does it strictly matter that everyone believes evolution? No; but it does matter that social divisions aren’t induced, nor policies formed, because of superstitious thinking being tolerated so readily from bottom-up and top-down. It’s odd that creationism is the focus of the divide/argument in some ways, it could just as well be any other aspect of religious doctrine – like the blatant impossibility of Luke’s Nativity, etc. I’ve a guess of my own as to why it is – aside from the headfuckingly obvious amount of evidence on one side of the argument that makes confused rage rather ignitable – and that’s that I reckon people in general are too fucking lazy to get past the first couple of chapters in Genesis (or the Sura of The Cow, etc, etc). Everyone with a brain wishes to get through the whole of these books, but by the time most people get to Genesis 5, they’re just reeling from the sheer amount of bullshit… or completely sold
Definitely maybe.
You’re definitely right about it being a waste of time ranting brain-based truths with someone who thinks ‘from their heart’, though, for sure – they need an emotive reason as to why something should matter to them, and surely the best way isn’t to rant about vestigial organs, but to point out that the same superstitions are held by opposing religions and all their heathen ways, and God forbid they come to power!
Good post. I liked it. Thoughts?
November 3, 2010 at 3:46 pm
thethreelimes
I’ll go through this methodically. The problem with setting evolution up as the choice of rational thinkers is that a belief in evolution doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re a rational thinker. The difference between the two is that a rational thinker will look at creationism and say “this is highly unlikely” and look at evolution and say “this is highly likely and therefore it would be convenient to say it’s true”. There are a large group of people that latch onto an idea and run with it without looking, and a large proportion of these people believe in evolution. The damage is done when this group who believe in evolution engage with those that believe in creationism. Some days I wish that evolution were disproven just to show up the guys who take any idea and just run with it for who they really are. Of course these people are very welcome to say that a belief in creationism matters but that doesn’t make it true. If you’re someone who finds an argument “you must believe or else” convincing then I have absolutely no sympathy for you. My antidote to this would just be to tell you that “you must believe or else” isn’t true and thereby hopefully break the cognitive monopoly. That argument normally only works when the only arguments are absolute. If you make every choice a certainty, the chooser can choose in black and white terms, which leaves them much more susceptible to those that peddle “believe or else”. So instead of inserting an alternative, I feel doubt should be enough to get them asking questions and allow them to start thinking for themselves. As long as you’re there to answer the questions they have, it’s much easier for them to come up with a solution that’s more reasonable for them that’s closer to the truth and suitably further from “believe or else”.
It’s absolutely true that policies shouldn’t be enacted off the back of religious doctrine but there must be loads of policies that have been enacted by atheists who are just as irrational and harmful as any religious doctrine. These policies are almost always based on fear and this plays to a very human characteristic. I guess the main thing in these situations is that we enforce logic, regardless of what a policy-maker’s background is. Being part of society obviously requires a great deal of faith in other people and that’s a commodity we shouldn’t discard lightly, regardless of what we think of them and their beliefs.
I do plan to read the Bible some time but I fear you may be right with that 5th paragraph.
The final point is interesting but I’m not convinced pointing out that they share the same superstitions as other religions, firstly because I think the media plays up massively the number of people who “hate” those of a religion different to their own, and secondly because, if they really do “hate” those others, they’ll usually find some argument that confirms there own position regardless of what you tell them. I have no interest in converting people from their beliefs so perhaps I’m wrong person to discuss strategy. On the other hand, maybe that makes me the perfect person to ask about strategy. Who knows.
November 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Ben
I agree with you that setting up belief-in-evolution as ‘the’ choice for rational thinkers isn’t right, for the same reasons – the belief doesn’t suppose quality of rationality. I’ve felt the same way about many of evolution’s proponents, many are just faith-heads themselves; and, of course, “believe X or else” is untrue – my thinking, hopelessly ill-expressed, is more along “doubt it all, but disbelieve creationism or you’re patently ill-informed, and frankly quite dangerous for sustaining axiomatic beliefs without evidence, as the organisations that depend on your faith will now demonstrate…”.
Of course, you the atheist will have important beliefs that are perhaps sustained without evidence, and they are potentially just as dangerous as the religious ideas. Yes, the atheist and the evolutionist can be just as ill-informed and assumptive, but until they form organisations that demand allegiance by faith, then the “belief or else” proselytizers are just a pain in the arse and as we seem to agree, their means aren’t particularly helpful.
Absolutely no sympathy? Isn’t that a touch ‘believe or else’ harsh?
Just playing…
Sure, of course there’s been plenty of irrational and harmful legislation enacted by atheists, and yes, logic has to be central – well, logic derived from substantiated evidence instead of religious claims at least. Anyway, this is just getting tangential as I’m sure we agree about the need for secularism for the same reasons. Going back to your original point – yes, “believe or else” isn’t the way to argue with people who don’t do facts.
Again, I should’ve written about the importance of disbelief rather than conversion – converting someone from X to Y without their independent thorough reasoning from evidence is just smearing a turd from one area to another. Though, I must ask if you really mean that you have no interest in converting – or even de-converting – beliefs? De-conversion really matters in many, many cases.
When/Should you get round to the Bible I really recommend a historical study of how it came to be written – like Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible?”- to be read alongside it, as otherwise it is almost incomprehensible. I still don’t understand how people reconcile the absurd contradictions of the doublets, but at least get why they’re there in the first place. The same for the Quran, too… God help anyone who gets easily bored with that one. If you haven’t heard the news: you’re kaffir, an infidel and you’re going to Hell. How wonderful it must be to be a child to grow up with that fear in mind at all hours of the day.
Ho hum.
… and I’ve to cut this ramble short as I’ve a cat wrapped round my neck
November 3, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Ben
“… you the atheist”? Sorry about that. “…the atheist…”*
November 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm
thethreelimes
Yes it’s harsh but I don’t have any sympathy in general since I’m a cold-hearted bastard.
December 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
lane1206
Who’s to judge??? Believe ,or not, Facts are facts! Some people need to believe!!! If they all know the truth, they might go the way of “Harey Carey”!!! All forbid the death of a race, or people, which may save this planet from our greedy HANDS!!! GOD OR NO GOD,,, we’re still burning the candle at both ends!!! Trying to speak to people who are unwilling to listen, is the definition of insane. do the same thing over and over, expect a different result every time,,,,,,,,, INSANITY!!! Look it up! I love this planet we live on, but my love of it won’t save it!!! I’d like to think all is for something, but I’ve been a realist since birth. I was brought up christian, but always knew better. I suppose some people are just born ignorant, and that is how they will die! Ignorance must be bliss, I think I was just born without it!!!! But, i still believe in god. What else do I have to believe in when the rich get richer and we die trying???? just a poor bastard trying to raise honorable KIDS!!!
December 2, 2010 at 9:01 am
thethreelimes
I think we’ve all been there. Incidentally, when you say “Harey Carey”, I presume you mean harakiri, or am I missing something?
December 12, 2010 at 7:55 am
lane1206
You are correct in your presumtion. I used “Harey Karey” to reach out to those who need to be reached by short arms.” you are correct, sir , “. WE have all been there, time and time again! Elude me to any solution, please?!??
January 2, 2011 at 3:05 pm
2010 in review « Chris Hemmens' Blog
[...] How to argue with people who don’t do facts October 20108 comments 3 [...]