Lies or Incompetence?

[ElCodeMonkey]

I am often fascinated by the fact that people cannot come to an agreement about something. I can lay out what I think is solid and rational argument only to find the recipients entirely incapable of comprehending. Similarly, the arguments brought forth to me sound ridiculous and easily defeated, but they can never see how they've been defeated so soundly and logically. It's easy to see them as incompetent or dishonest yet I strongly believe they feel the same about me. They are absolutely just as convinced as I am in the opposite direction. We often think the other side is just being dishonest, evil, or stupid. And yet the other side thinks the same. So how in the world can we ever truly know? Is there a method of knowing if we're lying to ourselves and we're the dumb ones? Has science shown anything in the brain perhaps that can reveal that we truly DO understand something but choose to reject it and so deceive ourselves? What is really going on? Or is one side of an argument actually just evil incarnate like we're led to believe?

[Divine Insight]

What many people do not understand is that "logic" is nothing more than a formal method of reasoning. Also, "logic" does not demand, or require, that any specific premises must be true.

Now if you understand this, then you should be able to see how different people can come to different, totally valid and logical conclusions, simply because they have embraced different starting premises.

For example, a while back Bill Nye the Science Guy, had a debate with Ken Ham, a firm believer in Biblical Creationism. They both gave "sound" arguments based upon the premises they each began with. However, they were both basing their logical reasoning on two entirely different premises.

Bill Guy was basing his logic on the premise that we can indeed discover the truth of our world by observing how the world behaves, and drawing conclusions from these observation (i.e. the scientific method).

Ken Ham, on the other hand, was basing his logic on the premise that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Therefore the Bible cannot be wrong. If something is observed via the scientific method that conflict with the Biblical narrative, then science must be wrong, because Ken Ham's starting PREMISE is that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. That is where Ken Ham STARTS his logical reasoning. He even said so during his debate with Bill Nye.

So there you go. Neither one is lying. Neither one is "stupid". Unless you want to claim that Ken Ham is stupid for accepting that the Hebrew Bible is the infallible Word of God. But Ken Ham and his religious cohorts would claim that Bill Nye is the one who is "stupid" for believing anything that doesn't line up with the "Word of God".

So the bottom line really has nothing at all to do with a person's ability to reason. It has to do with what kind of premises they are willing to accept.

Now, if you want to argue that Bill Nye's premises are more rational, I would be the first to agree.

If you want to argue that Ken Ham is naive for blindly accepting the Hebrew Bible to be the infallible Word of God, I would also agree.

But it's the acceptance of the underlying premises that people are relying upon in their arguments.

If you accept Ken Ham's PREMISE that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and must be the absolute truth. Then of course, you're then going to need to draw the same conclusions he draws (i.e. everything written in the Bible must be true precisely has it has been described).

The reason we don't accept Ken Ham's arguments, is because we don't accept his foundational PREMISE.

And this is typically the type of thing that you find especially in theological arguments.

If the Bible says that Jesus is the virgin-born Son of Yahweh, then that's a PREMISE that you must accept as being true before moving forward to making any logical reasoning about Jesus.

If you reject that PREMISE, then you've already rejected the stories. There really isn't much more to say about them after that.

Why bother arguing against something when you have already rejected it's major premises?

All you can do at that point, is make arguments that the premises themselves aren't compelling. And that's what most non-theists say. They simply reject the stories because the premises required to believe them are not compelling premises.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Right, an argument can be sound given the premises, but then we take the argument back and argue the premises. As you said, Ken ham is less "rational" and is "blindly" accepting a premise. That itself is something to then have arguments about. It seems absolutely crazy to me that an agreement cannot be found. There is a fundamental error somewhere. Why can it not be determined by going back far enough and finding the logical error? At some point the logic breaks down and disappears entirely.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Right, an argument can be sound given the premises, but then we take the argument back and argue the premises. As you said, Ken ham is less "rational" and is "blindly" accepting a premise. That itself is something to then have arguments about. It seems absolutely crazy to me that an agreement cannot be found. There is a fundamental error somewhere. Why can it not be determined by going back far enough and finding the logical error? At some point the logic breaks down and disappears entirely.

A Ham-like argument in defense of his premise goes something like this. (note: I am not claiming that this particular argument applies to Ken Ham, but I've heard many similar arguments)

1. I was taught on my mother's knee that the Bible is the "Word of God",

Surely you aren't going to question my mother's intelligence?

2. As I grew up I have met many theological scholars, apologists, clergy, and even countless church institutions that accept this premise.

Just look at the entire institution of Catholicism. Surely you're not going to claim that over two millennium of Catholic Scholars studying this religoin are idiots?

3. Just LOOK! Even the Bible itself predicts that there will be "fools" who reject the Word of God.

Men who think they are wise, when in fact they are the idiots who so arrogantly think that they could know more than God!

Have you read the works of Saint Paul?

Romans 1:
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

(note: I underlined the term "debate" because this is what the fundamentalists will point to if you question these scriptures. You want to "debate" them. Thus proving that you are the evil ungodly person that Paul speaks of.)

Atheists are the ones who have no excuse, it says so right in the Bible.

Lookie here:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

See. Those who do not recognize God are "Without Excuse".

They are the ones that you need to investigate to see where it is they went wrong in their thinking.

(reminder - this is not my argument, but the argument you might get from someone like Ken Ham, or some other religious fanatic.)

They have "reasons" that seem reasonable to them. And your objection to their reasons only confirms to them that their reasons are valid because the Bible predicts that there will be foolish men who will reject the Word of God and want to "debate" it.

That's a no-no once you have embraced the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. You don't dare question it. Only the most evil sinners would question God's infinite wisdom and authority.

You just don't question the "Word of God".

My mother taught me that much when I was still sitting on her knee. You aren't about to convert me to become a heathen! Satan has you under his spell if you reject the truth of God's Word.

(final note: My guess is that this is simply how their brain has become wired as they grew up. I'm not sure that any amount of reason could rewire their brain. They seem to have bought into this religion hook, line, and sinker. And trying to get them to see the folly of their reasoning isn't going to be easy, or perhaps not even possible.)

The Bible is the Word of God, and any suggestion to the contrary can only be coming from Satan. That's the mentality apparently.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

Observations cannot cannot be disputed. If something is observed and measured then that observation must accounted for in any theory.

Interpretations of observations are adjusted to meet an experimenters view of the world.

Zircon crystals contain helium. Helium diffuses relatively rapidly through solid material. So why is the Helium still in the zircon crystals? The interpretation depends on an experimenters view of where the world came from.

Carbon 14 has been discovered in diamonds. Why is carbon 14 found in diamonds? The interpretation of the observation depends on your worldview.

Soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. Why is soft tissue found in dinosaur bones? Depends on your worldview.

Facts are not in dispute worldviews are in dispute and that gives different interpretations of the the observed facts.

So it really depends on how one person views the worldview of another person.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

We often think the other side is just being dishonest, evil, or stupid

That right there I'd say is what entrenches people's positions, you can't change your mind, no matter the evidence, without becoming all the names you called the other side.

And this is where acknowledging our faith, beliefs, is important- once 'undeniable truth' is declared, any dissenting opinion must therefore be dishonest, evil, stupid etc by definition, one naturally flows from the other,

Case in point:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,but I'd rather not consider that) :Dawkins

[Divine Insight]

Case in point:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,but I'd rather not consider that) :Dawkins

The problem I see is that ignorance isn't necessarily a belittling or degrading accusation. Ignorance simply means that the person isn't fully aware of the overwhelming evidence there is for evolution.

I would be very happy if anyone could demonstrate what I am ignorant about in having accepted the overwhelming evidence for evolution. You'd need to point out precisely what it is that I have not understood correctly.

One thing for certain, when a theist says something like "Evolution is just a theory", this actually displays their ignorance of evolution like a bright neon sign. For one thing, that phrase isn't even true.

Another thing they might say that reveals extreme ignorance is when they say that evolution violates the law of Entropy. This is also a display of extreme ignorance. In truth, it's actually the law of Entropy that allows evolution to occur.

And of course when they compare Evolution with a hurricane hitting a scrap yard and just accidentally blowing all the rubble into a very nice town complete with new homes, cars, and businesses proclaiming that the probability of this happening is zero, which proves that evolution cannot happen, is without a doubt, the greatest display of ignorance possible.

So, it really is most likely that people who do not accept that evolution is true are indeed ignorant of how evolution even works.

~~~~~

Then there's the other side of the coin as well.

If they are arguing against evolution in favor of a God who has to "reach into the universe" to guide individual molecules into forming into living animals, and humans. That argument itself is extremely ignorant.

First you have a God who would have needed to create a universe that is actually hostile to life in the first place. And then you'd need to have a creator God who actually creates life that preys on itself. Not only on the animal level, but also on the bacterial and viral level.

You end up with a "Designer God" who could only be said to be a malevolent designer.

A God who would then necessarily need to be personally responsible for every disease and genetic defect that has ever occurred.

In other words, the moment they reject evolution, they end up with a theology that has far more problems that evolution could have ever dreamed of having.

So yes, without intending to pass any judgement on anyone's intellectual abilities, the moment someone reject evolution they have, at the very least, exhibited extreme ignorance (i.e. a lack of understanding of the concept in question)


Evolution is true.

The best thing any theist can do is to accept this and either work it into their current theology, or move over to another theology where evolution is included.

Obviously the Catholic Church has embraced evolution. So there's really no need for an Catholics to deny evolution at this point. The only Christian theists who would need to reject evolution at this point would be Protestant Fundamentalists.

I was a Free Methodist Protestant, and I'm pretty sure our church did not deny evolution. They simply accepted that evolution was how God created life. As I mentioned before, they simply worked evolution into their theology rather than trying to renounce it. Like the Catholic Church, they knew better than to try to renounce something that is so obviously true.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]


I would say- it's safe to say that if you meet someone who claims to believe in evolution, they are probably perfectly honest, intelligent, rational people, capable of critical thought, just probably mistaken. no ad hom required

I think people who still believe in Darwinian evolution in the 21st C are often technically ignorant of the current state of the science yes..

but I don't think using that derogatory term is very helpful- far less 'stupid' 'insane' 'wicked'- those betray an emotional v scientific position, and very dangerous words
to apply so publicly to such a large & broad population

& I agree, all the design elements in a neighborhood cannot come from a hurricane

any more than all the design stages required to turn a single cell into a human being can arise from random errors

both require preordained information, blueprints, determining outcomes- the math has no preferred world view- or disdain for any other, to taint it's objectivity on this

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 8 by Guy Threepwood]

any more than all the design stages required to turn a single cell into a human being can arise from random errors

Random mutations and NATURAL SELECTION, operating over billions of years. Why do you always describe the process as if it were pure randomness and nothing more?

[Divine Insight]

& I agree, all the design elements in a neighborhood cannot come from a hurricane

any more than all the design stages required to turn a single cell into a human being can arise from random errors

both require preordained information, blueprints, determining outcomes- the math has no preferred world view- or disdain for any other, to taint it's objectivity on this

And there you go. You are exhibiting a gross misunderstanding of how evolution has occurred.

It's that simple.

No offense intended, but you're just arguing for a totally false and incorrect picture of evolution.

If you actually believe the misinformation you have just expressed, then it's no wonder that you reject evolution. I would reject evolution too if the picture of evolution you have just expressed was actually accurate and true. But it's not.

See DrNoGods post just before this one. You have failed to recognize the role of natural selection.