Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

I agree that ignoring evidence does weaken one's case but that applies to anyone who ignores evidence in a debate surely? Furthermore claiming that someone "ignored" purported evidence is very hard to establish. The recipient might not interpret it as evidence at all, in many cases what someone insists is evidence might be legitimately interpreted as not evidence, the data might be consistent with several alternative scenarios for example.

To say "they ignored the evidence" presumes that what was presented to them is unambiguously evidence in support of one's argument. But claiming that something is supporting evidence is itself a claim.

It's not difficult to conclude that the person has "ignored" something when they don't reply to the information or even acknowledge its existence.

Yes one can choose to conclude that but that does not prove they actually ignored it, that they did not examine it, that they did not evaluate it. Not replying is, well, not replying.

I see the universe and people who have an ability to ask questions about that universe and find answers to those questions as evidence for God, if others disagree I can't accuse them of ignoring the evidence only interpreting it differently to me.

You can if, in a debate, they don't even reply.

Not true, refusing to reply or comment is not the same thing as ignoring. Interpreting their silence as them ignoring is as I said before, an interpretation of the data.

The question of transitional fossils is a case in point. If evolution were in fact true and scarcity of suitable preservation conditions prevented sufficient fossils then we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see, but equally if evolution were not true and the punctuated fossilized remains reflected the true history then again we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see. There is insufficient fossil evidence to prove absolutely a continuous process took place, it is subjective and refusal to interpret the data in the way the evolutionist chooses to interpret it does not justify the accusation that they are ignoring anything.

The claim that fossil record is evidence is to claim that all gaps are only apparent gaps, that we know 100% that a vast multitude of intermediates did exist but were not preserved. But claiming something existed when there's no evidence it did is an interpretation of the gap, the interpretation that the gap is only apparent, if the gap were real how could you tell?

To speak of "ignoring" evidence while at the same time making claims things existed without evidence they did exist, strikes me as equally problematic.

If a creationist posts all of that in response to data that was posted and ties it directly to the specific specimens that were shown, then they cannot be said to have ignored the data.

What I'm talking about is quite different. It's someone saying "X doesn't exist", people replying by showing multiple examples of X, the person ignoring those posts, and later repeating "X doesn't exist" as if no one had ever posted anything.

People replying "showing multiple examples of X" are claims, and they might be false claims, they might be fanciful interpretations and so on. If I were to show multiple examples of intelligent design and people said there is no indication of intelligent design at all, how is that any different? Is that not ignoring the evidence?

One again we have to acknowledge that interpretation is involved here, there's no escaping it, there's no absolute certainty in claims made about the fossil record supporting evolution. There might be a deeply held belief but that's all it is.

I could accuse the evolutionist of ignoring the absence of evidence just as easily as you might accuse the creationist of ignoring evidence. The punctuated nature, the discontinuous nature of the fossil record is interpreted by me as evidence of something other than the paucity of suitable preservation conditions.

But this accusing back and forth is useless, far better to explore why people interpret things as they do, how they justify their interpretation, what evidence/arguments lead them to interpret things as they do, show some respect to the other party for the fact that there are often different ways to look at things.

[Jose Fly]

Yes one can choose to conclude that but that does not prove they actually ignored it, that they did not examine it, that they did not evaluate it. Not replying is, well, not replying.

Not true, refusing to reply or comment is not the same thing as ignoring. Interpreting their silence as them ignoring is as I said before, an interpretation of the data.

This is yet another avoidance mechanism, i.e., holding things to a standard of absolute certainty. "You can't absolutely prove X is the case" is a means to wave away inconvenient information.

Now, if you were to provide evidence and specific details for why it's reasonable to conclude that a person didn't actually ignore a post, that would be one thing. But merely asserting "You can't prove it" is nothing more than empty hand-waving.

People replying "showing multiple examples of X" are claims, and they might be false claims, they might be fanciful interpretations and so on. If I were to show multiple examples of intelligent design and people said there is no indication of intelligent design at all, how is that any different? Is that not ignoring the evidence?

Yes, if you put up a post wherein you describe "examples of intelligent design" and no one replies to it, you can reasonably conclude that your post was ignored. When you later see anyone say "there are no examples of intelligent design" or "no one has shown any examples of intelligent design", you can reasonably respond that you actually did post such examples and people ignored them.

One again we have to acknowledge that interpretation is involved here, there's no escaping it, there's no absolute certainty in claims made about the fossil record supporting evolution. There might be a deeply held belief but that's all it is.

More defensive mechanisms....holding to a standard of absolute certainty and vague statements about "interpretation".

Here's how I see it. If after someone posted a list and description of transitional fossils, a creationist replied by starting off with "I don't agree with the interpretation of those specimens" and then gave fairly detailed and specific reasons for their disagreement, that would be just fine.

But when in the same situation the creationist merely replies "That's just one interpretation" and leaves it at that, that's nothing more than hand-waving. It's no different than simply saying "Nuh uh" and walking away (and in a debate it's not a valid rebuttal either).

I hope you understand the difference.

I could accuse the evolutionist of ignoring the absence of evidence just as easily as you might accuse the creationist of ignoring evidence. The punctuated nature, the discontinuous nature of the fossil record is interpreted by me as evidence of something other than the paucity of suitable preservation conditions.

You could, but without specific examples they would just be empty accusations. That's why I'm always careful to make sure I can point to specific cases before saying such things.

But this accusing back and forth is useless, far better to explore why people interpret things as they do, how they justify their interpretation, what evidence/arguments lead them to interpret things as they, show some respect for the fact that there are often different ways to look at things.

Then I gotta ask.....why don't you do that with the data folks provide you? When I posted the example of forams showing continuity in their fossil record, why didn't you do all that?

[Inquirer]

Yes one can choose to conclude that but that does not prove they actually ignored it, that they did not examine it, that they did not evaluate it. Not replying is, well, not replying.

Not true, refusing to reply or comment is not the same thing as ignoring. Interpreting their silence as them ignoring is as I said before, an interpretation of the data.

This is yet another avoidance mechanism, i.e., holding things to a standard of absolute certainty. "You can't absolutely prove X is the case" is a means to wave away inconvenient information.

It is a true statement, interpret it as you choose.

Now, if you were to provide evidence and specific details for why it's reasonable to conclude that a person didn't actually ignore a post, that would be one thing. But merely asserting "You can't prove it" is nothing more than empty hand-waving.

I don't think its wise to go beyond the evidence, not replying is not replying. They might have totally ignored it, they might be still studying it, they might be taking time to formulate a response and so on.

People replying "showing multiple examples of X" are claims, and they might be false claims, they might be fanciful interpretations and so on. If I were to show multiple examples of intelligent design and people said there is no indication of intelligent design at all, how is that any different? Is that not ignoring the evidence?

Yes, if you put up a post wherein you describe "examples of intelligent design" and no one replies to it, you can reasonably conclude that your post was ignored. When you later see anyone say "there are no examples of intelligent design" or "no one has shown any examples of intelligent design", you can reasonably respond that you actually did post such examples and people ignored them.

Very well.

One again we have to acknowledge that interpretation is involved here, there's no escaping it, there's no absolute certainty in claims made about the fossil record supporting evolution. There might be a deeply held belief but that's all it is.

More defensive mechanisms....holding to a standard of absolute certainty and vague statements about "interpretation".

I see, the accusations just keep coming, I'm sorry but I have nothing more to say to you in this thread Jose, I'd hoped these accusations would stop but they haven't.

[Jose Fly]

Yes one can choose to conclude that but that does not prove they actually ignored it, that they did not examine it, that they did not evaluate it. Not replying is, well, not replying.

Not true, refusing to reply or comment is not the same thing as ignoring. Interpreting their silence as them ignoring is as I said before, an interpretation of the data.

This is yet another avoidance mechanism, i.e., holding things to a standard of absolute certainty. "You can't absolutely prove X is the case" is a means to wave away inconvenient information.

It is a true statement, interpret it as you choose.

Now, if you were to provide evidence and specific details for why it's reasonable to conclude that a person didn't actually ignore a post, that would be one thing. But merely asserting "You can't prove it" is nothing more than empty hand-waving.

I don't think its wise to go beyond the evidence, not replying is not replying. They might have totally ignored it, they might be still studying it, they might be taking time to formulate a response and so on.

People replying "showing multiple examples of X" are claims, and they might be false claims, they might be fanciful interpretations and so on. If I were to show multiple examples of intelligent design and people said there is no indication of intelligent design at all, how is that any different? Is that not ignoring the evidence?

Yes, if you put up a post wherein you describe "examples of intelligent design" and no one replies to it, you can reasonably conclude that your post was ignored. When you later see anyone say "there are no examples of intelligent design" or "no one has shown any examples of intelligent design", you can reasonably respond that you actually did post such examples and people ignored them.

Very well.

One again we have to acknowledge that interpretation is involved here, there's no escaping it, there's no absolute certainty in claims made about the fossil record supporting evolution. There might be a deeply held belief but that's all it is.

More defensive mechanisms....holding to a standard of absolute certainty and vague statements about "interpretation".

I see, the accusations just keep coming, I'm sorry but I have nothing more to say to you in this thread Jose, I'd hoped these accusations would stop but they haven't.

I'm spitballing here.....

I wonder if a factor in all this is what sort of environment one is used to. In my line of work for example, we often give presentations at scientific conferences and part of that includes each presentation having a 10-20 minute question and answer session at the end. So in all the times I've gotten up in front of my colleagues and presented, I did so with the expectation that I would not only be questioned about what I presented, but I would be expected to address and answer the questions.

If in my presentation I merely asserted something and during the Q&A someone asked "What data do you have to support that", and I responded by not saying anything other than "Next question" or I just said "That's your interpretation", I promise you the entire audience would conclude that I had ignored/dodged the question and the underlying issue it raised.

If we were in a formal debate and you asked me a question and I didn't reply, the judges would conclude that I ignored the question and would score the point for you.

IOW, in many of the settings I'm accustomed to the expectation is that everything you say and do is open to questioning and scrutiny, and if challenged on something you will respond. And if you don't respond, or respond with empty hand-waving, the consequences to your reputation and standing are pretty severe (professionally).

That's in direct contrast to what I saw in the religious environments I've been in. There, questioning speakers is highly discouraged and seen as a sign of disloyalty and doubt. People (like me) who tend to question things are chastised for "asking too many questions" and not having sufficient faith. Actual debates are very rare and are usually shut down as quickly as possible.

So two very different environments (almost polar opposites) with very different approaches to questioning. There's a basis for that too, but for now it's important to appreciate the differences in environments we each come from and live in, and how they impact our behaviors....specifically in terms of how we respond to being questioned and challenged. Some folks embrace it, whereas others avoid it at all costs.

[Purple Knight]

For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors?

I always approach debate from the understanding that I am probably wrong. It gives me a lot of insight.

Now, I still don't think some omnipotent bearded person did it, at least, probably not, but evolution alone (here meaning genetic change and nothing else, no sudden creative acts) doesn't account for everything. To me, the first simple bacterium that swallowed what later became mitochondria... well, that organism was engaging in a creative act. He didn't just evolve: He engaged in a very important act that changed him and his descendants forever, and that, in and of itself, had nothing to do with genetics.

In that way I actually don't have any beef with creationists. Surely life as it is now required many of these extra-evolutionary creative acts. I don't rule out some of them being purposeful. And if you read the bits edited out of Genesis, or even if you just notice that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, there were people around doing what people do before the Abrahamic God made Adamic man. So, actually, I don't even think it's too ridiculous a possibility that some strange being used a creative act to copy people but make them his own. We use artificial selection to make species our own so why not? All the pieces are there so it's absolutely possible that the Bible is true in this way and Semitic (Adamic) people have a special origin.

I don't disagree with religion because I think none of the mystical events happened, though I do see many of them as highly unlikely.

I disagree with religion because I think that when you claim special moral privilege, such as, "I am God, what I say is right. Obey me," you need to justify that to everyone's satisfaction - everyone you expect that deference from.

If it's no more than assuming the created should be loyal to the creator, would you be happy saying that Satan's special people should be loyal to Satan? A few of the religious and semi-religious people I know think Satan created white people. Let's say this is literally true. I don't imagine anyone would be happy with allowing and even condoning an allegiance to evil just because it created you, and that and that everyone would say, no, if your creator is evil then cast him off. So that fails.

If it's because God is omnipotent, does that just make it true that might makes right? Even if we're happy with that it's up to peoples' own judgment what they do when there's an absentee landlord. If they end up bowing to Nazis and calling it right because they can see the Nazis and they can't see God, then people who lay righteousness on a foundation of power really baked their own cake there.

I can't find a reason. Which is why I admit it all might be true (outside chance, though, similar to unicorns once being real) but I can't really find a strong moral basis that I feel has justified itself to me adequately. "Just trust God" doesn't do it for me because anyone can say they are God and to trust them, including the Devil.

[Jose Fly]

I always approach debate from the understanding that I am probably wrong. It gives me a lot of insight.

I like that!

Now, I still don't think some omnipotent bearded person did it, at least, probably not, but evolution alone (here meaning genetic change and nothing else, no sudden creative acts) doesn't account for everything. To me, the first simple bacterium that swallowed what later became mitochondria... well, that organism was engaging in a creative act. He didn't just evolve: He engaged in a very important act that changed him and his descendants forever, and that, in and of itself, had nothing to do with genetics.

In that way I actually don't have any beef with creationists. Surely life as it is now required many of these extra-evolutionary creative acts. I don't rule out some of them being purposeful. And if you read the bits edited out of Genesis, or even if you just notice that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, there were people around doing what people do before the Abrahamic God made Adamic man. So, actually, I don't even think it's too ridiculous a possibility that some strange being used a creative act to copy people but make them his own. We use artificial selection to make species our own so why not? All the pieces are there so it's absolutely possible that the Bible is true in this way and Semitic (Adamic) people have a special origin.

I don't disagree with religion because I think none of the mystical events happened, though I do see many of them as highly unlikely.

I disagree with religion because I think that when you claim special moral privilege, such as, "I am God, what I say is right. Obey me," you need to justify that to everyone's satisfaction - everyone you expect that deference from.

If it's no more than assuming the created should be loyal to the creator, would you be happy saying that Satan's special people should be loyal to Satan? A few of the religious and semi-religious people I know think Satan created white people. Let's say this is literally true. I don't imagine anyone would be happy with allowing and even condoning an allegiance to evil just because it created you, and that and that everyone would say, no, if your creator is evil then cast him off. So that fails.

If it's because God is omnipotent, does that just make it true that might makes right? Even if we're happy with that it's up to peoples' own judgment what they do when there's an absentee landlord. If they end up bowing to Nazis and calling it right because they can see the Nazis and they can't see God, then people who lay righteousness on a foundation of power really baked their own cake there.

I can't find a reason. Which is why I admit it all might be true (outside chance, though, similar to unicorns once being real) but I can't really find a strong moral basis that I feel has justified itself to me adequately. "Just trust God" doesn't do it for me because anyone can say they are God and to trust them, including the Devil.

That's very interesting for sure and I appreciate you sharing, but the thread is about behaviors, not beliefs.

[Purple Knight]

That's very interesting for sure and I appreciate you sharing, but the thread is about behaviors, not beliefs.

I guess I avoided stating how what I said relates to the question.

Of course I can see thinking of life as having been created deliberately. I see it as having been created accidentally so that's not much of a leap. The idea that nobody is powerful enough to do deliberately what a bacterium did accidentally is ludicrous. Of course it might have happened.

The understanding only breaks down when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible.

[Inquirer]

That's very interesting for sure and I appreciate you sharing, but the thread is about behaviors, not beliefs.

I guess I avoided stating how what I said relates to the question.

Of course I can see thinking of life as having been created deliberately. I see it as having been created accidentally so that's not much of a leap. The idea that nobody is powerful enough to do deliberately what a bacterium did accidentally is ludicrous. Of course it might have happened.

The understanding only breaks down when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible.

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

[Purple Knight]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Whether the maker has rights to the robot isn't the first question. The first question is whether the robot should obey the maker unquestioningly.

If the robot is even asking the question then that's evidence that the answer is probably no.

...Because the robot is no longer a robot.

...And at that point, I would personally say no, the creator has no more right to the robot than a parent does to his child.

But I can easily assess the pressing question under the assumption that the answer is yes: The maker still owns the robot. At the point the robot becomes morally aware, he should defy his creator if he thinks his creator is an evil one, and he should try to win his own self-ownership if he can.

[Inquirer]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Whether the maker has rights to the robot isn't the first question. The first question is whether the robot should obey the maker unquestioningly.

If the robot is even asking the question then that's evidence that the answer is probably no.

...Because the robot is no longer a robot.

...And at that point, I would personally say no, the creator has no more right to the robot than a parent does to his child.

But I can easily assess the pressing question under the assumption that the answer is yes: The maker still owns the robot. At the point the robot becomes morally aware, he should defy his creator if he thinks his creator is an evil one, and he should try to win his own self-ownership if he can.

That last paragraph is interesting, that is exactly what mankind has done!