Tuesday, June 23, 2009

“Two Categories” Revisited

... A follow-up to my earlier post on the Two Categories of Beliefs and Opinions. First, I want to thank you who responded with comments and suggestions. You were all very helpful to me.

You may recall my thesis: some opinions and beliefs are based upon choice, while others are based upon evidence and reason; and that it is easier to adjust or alter those beliefs based upon evidence than those beliefs which are merely chosen sans evidence. This realization was somewhat counter-intuitive for me; and on a practical level, it has helped me to better understand my own struggle to influence the opinions of many friends.

Several of my readers confirmed the thesis in their comments:

I must agree with your position: to the extent that beliefs are credos not resulting from rational inquiry, to that same extent rational arguments will fail to dissuade. (Steve Douglas)

Yes you are demonstrably spot on. Evidence based beliefs change with the evidence. (Psiloiordinay)

Regarding the types of belief, when an opinion is choice and really not built on evidence at all, it is no wonder that evidence-based arguments are ignored or poorly received.  (Tom)

 And finally, this observation from Vance:

I struggle with the same issues and have come to the same conclusion—that this is a belief-based issue for the vast majority of the people that hold to YEC or anti-evolution beliefs

As I have continued to reflect upon these ideas, I was led to a corollary observation. Perhaps for some of you, this has been obvious all along. Be patient with me! I’m still a little slow on the uptake. Here is the observation:

Evangelical Christians who have made the shift from Creationism to Evolution are, in almost all cases, people who were deeply into "creation science", so-called. That is to say that these individuals (of whom I am one) were once upon a time convinced of creationism, and their opinion was not merely driven by choice. They placed a high value upon what they considered to be the evidence for a young earth, a young cosmos, and the special creation of species. This is true of my internet friends including Steve Martin, Gordon Glover, Chris Tilling, Mike Beidler, Steve Douglas, and no doubt many others. 

We were all Young Earth Creationists. Early on, our opinions may have been founded upon a choice to believe what we then understood the Bible to teach. But we went beyond mere chosen belief, and sought evidence to support our convictions. Thus, we came to base our Young Earth Creationism upon what we considered to be good evidence and reasoning. We understood the case for YEC quite well, in most cases far better than our Christian friends. And so, when we discovered the superiority of evidence supporting an ancient cosmos, and the evolutionary rise of life on earth, we found the shift relatively easy. As Psi points out, “Evidence based beliefs change with the evidence.”

This process, common to many of us, is documented well in Mike Beidler's excellent personal history, "The Creation of an Evolutionist" which begins with his first post.

But our friends, who may not understand the science supporting YEC nearly so well, will find it much more difficult to accept the notion of evolution. As Tom put it, “when an opinion is choice and really not built on evidence at all, it is no wonder that evidence-based arguments are ignored or poorly received.”

And if Vance is correct, that the "vast majority" of those who still cling to YEC do so on the basis of choice, then we may be in for a very long wait, as Vance goes on to suggest: “Regarding the inevitable paradigm shift, I think this will almost be a generational style transition, way slower than I would like.”

Indeed, a high percentage of my Christian friends who are finding evolution compatible with their faith are under 30.

22 comments:

RBH said...

Cliff, you wrote
.
But our friends, who may not understand the science supporting YEC nearly so well, will find it much more difficult to accept the notion of evolution.
.
I think you've got three extra words in that. Given my interactions with YECs, from the pews to Ph.D.s, I'd word it this way:

But our friends, who may not understand ... science ... nearly so well, will find it much more difficult to accept the notion of evolution.
.
Those of you who have moved from YEC to evolutionary creationism have assigned a different role to evidence. For you (and for me!), evidence plays an important role in how you evaluate explanations and assumptions and presuppositions. Evidence is important to us in accepting or rejecting them. For the bulk of the YECs I know, up to and including people like Georgia Purdom at AIG, a Ph.D. molecular geneticist, evidence is to be interpreted as supporting a pre-accepted set of assumptions and explanations. If some bit of evidence appears to contradict them, it's either mistaken, misinterpreted, or fraudulent, because empirical evidence cannot contradict truth. Purdom put it flatly to me several years ago: "We know the truth." The italics were in her intonation. (She used to teach 6 miles from me.)

So it is not just knowing the evidence or knowing how science operates that's critical; it's what the role of evidence is conceived to be. Georgia knows the evidence and knows how science operates; she consciously declines to operate according to that mode of epistemology. She's spending her life re-interpreting or denying the evidence that at some level she knows exists. It's genuinely sad to see.

RBH said...

Rats. Clipped the last paragraph.

So the difference is in how you and Mike and the others you name have come to treat evidence. That's a significant difference in cognitive set, and is not easily induced. It might be because you explored the evidence adduced for YEC more deeply, but I suspect it was more in how you treated evidence from the beginning.

Cliff Martin said...

RBH,

Indeed. You have more directly identified what I was trying to say about those of us who have transitioned from a "evidence-based" belief in YEC to an evidence-based belief in evolution. And you are correct: evidence and reason have always been essential to our personal epistemology. You might say we were predisposed to accept evolution because of the importance we put upon evidence ... even while we were in the YEC camp.

And I could leave out those three words. But my point was that many YEC people not only reject science in general, they are not even well acquainted with YEC science. Science just does not play much of a role in into how they arrive at understandings.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

A brief summary;

I am brought up by folks and repeatedly told that A is true and that most of the world claims that B is true which, I am told, also means that A must be false.

As I get older I find that B does indeed appear to be true. (Oh dear those folks told a lie).

I realise that actual most folks who accept that B appears to be true do not also claim that A is false (chalk up lie number two for those folks).

So hang on two of the biggest things those folks told me where untrue, what's more they now continue to lie to my face about them and I can see their various fallacies and distortions for what they are.

Scary times for me. I better see what else they told me was true . . . that would be A then.

A = christianity
B = evolution
folks = YEC

Or have I missed something?

So YEC is a high risk game all right. EVERYTHING depends on evolution not existing. The fact that it does questions EVERYTHING.

Regards,

Psi

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi:

As I get older I find that B does indeed appear to be true. (Oh dear those folks told a lie).

It's only a lie if they said something that they knew to be false. Otherwise, they are simply wrong.

I realise that actual most folks who accept that B appears to be true do not also claim that A is false (chalk up lie number two for those folks).

Now you are the one buying into the false dichotomy. There is no requirement that it must be "only A or B".

Rich G.

BTW, I wasn't ignoring your other request, I just couldn't find an easy way to dig back deeper into the UTI archives for my examples.

Psiloiordinary said...

That's one subtle difference Rich.

These folks don't base their case on evidence afterall, and continue t deny the evidence when you rpesent it to them. For all their claims of presuppositions this is lying by any standard english usage and dictionary definition.

I don't understand your point about me buying into the false dichotomy at all. I am actually saying precisely the opposite.

I think it is fairly obvious fact that most christians on the planet do accept the evidence for evolution. There is no "choice" to be made, that is a YEC piece of dogma which goes against the evidence.

I read what I wrote again and this seems clear - what did you mean.

- - -

So let me get this right; you accuse athiests of bad behaviour, you can't back it up with evidence and so
you apolo. . .No
you respond on the original thre . . . No

you withdraw your comme. . .No

You tell me you aren't ignoring me.

Nice behaviour, thanks.

Psi

BTW wasn't this the kind of behaviour you were labelling all atheists with?

Psiloiordinary said...

Rich,

Or are you claiming that YEC's don't claim that is evolution or god?

Surely not.

I can give you some links with this if you like. So can google.

Psi

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi!

Or are you claiming that YEC's don't claim that is evolution or god?

No.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Rich,

I haven't a clue what you are talking about then.

One of us has lost the plot.

I don't know which one.

Regards,

Psi

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi:

One of us has lost the plot.

Your earlier post sounded to me like you were taking the other half of "it's either Christianity or Evolution". I believe this to be a false dichotomy. Did I misunderstand your position?

Rich G.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Rich,

Yes indeed!

I was attempting to summarise the problems with the false dichotomy and why it ultimately can led people to question their faith when they spot the YEC fibs they have been brought up on.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Regards,

Psi

AMW said...

Cliff,

You can add me to the list of evidence-based YECs turned evolutionist. And RBH, I'm not so sure you can claim that we just looked at the evidence differently before. Until college, I really hadn't seen a compelling case for evolution made. It wasn't not that evidence came to play a different role in forming my opinions. It's that the circles I ran in had a lot of control over the evidence that I saw.

Cliff Martin said...

AMW,

I ought to have included you in that list. I would have guessed you, too, fell into this category! And your recounting of how evidence is monitored and controlled is so true. It is a fatal flaw of many controversies that the "other side" is so seldom fairly represented. Creationists should not fear presenting the best of the pro-evolution science. But the same could be said the other way. Evolutionist should never conceal the one or two lines of evidence for Creationism that do make sense.

RBH said...

AMW wrote

And RBH, I'm not so sure you can claim that we just looked at the evidence differently before. Until college, I really hadn't seen a compelling case for evolution made. It wasn't not that evidence came to play a different role in forming my opinions. It's that the circles I ran in had a lot of control over the evidence that I saw.

In my defense, I said "the bulk of YECs". :) You're right, though -- control of access to evidence is a non-trivial factor. Over the years there's been the development of what amounts to a parallel "scientific" world in YEC, complete with considerable curricular materials for home schoolers. Evolution is often taught very badly, if at all, in public schools, and some of the home-schooling materials are truly execrable on it. My conversations with YECs in the context of the Freshwater hearing show that (a) they are confident they know what the theory of evolution is and says, but (b) they're profoundly ignorant of what the T of E is and says. I gave a series of one-hour talks on evolution at a church early this year, and the evidence I discussed -- morphological, fossil, and molecular -- was by and large wholly new to that audience of adults. The kids are even more insulated from it.

Cliff, I have to ask, what are "... the one or two lines of evidence for Creationism that do make sense." The anthropic principle? What? And do those lines of evidence make sense specifically in YEC or in a more generic "God created" context?

Cliff Martin said...

RBH,

Well, one example that I still puzzle over is the case YECs build for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans. Dragon lore exists in cultures all over the world, and dragons look a lot like dinosaurs. But there are extant drawings from the ancients that look even more like dinosaurs than the modern conception of dragons. I wonder where this collective memory of dinosaur like beasts came from.

I believe the evidence for dinosaur extinction at 65myo is strong, and I do not believe humans shared the planet with them. But the drawings amount to evidence we did. I'm sure there is an evolutionary response to the dinosaur drawings, but I have never come across it.

Psiloiordinary said...

Can anyone tell me why bringing up kids today as YECs is not brain washing / child abuse?

What about if some parents brought up their kids with a strange version of maths that got all the wrong answers and a belief that eveyone else in the world was either stupid or evil for not knowing better?

I think kids rights to a decent education overules the wishes of parents.

Regards,

psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Have you seen those drawings? They don't look like dinosaurs.

If you can find a good one please give us a link.

I thought it was a no brainer that legends of dragons came from people finding fossilised dinosaur bones.

Regards

psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

I will get that link ... no time right now. I must tell you, I was stunned when I saw them. Maybe they were fakes.

And my understanding is that the fossilized remains of dinosaurs were not assembled into any form recognizable as a "dragon" or dinosaur until the late 19th century. I would love to be set straight however. Mind you, I am not arguing this case. Its just that I haven't seen a good refutation yet ... and I would like to.

Psiloiordinary said...

Great - looking forward to a link.

Gonna be on iPhone only for the next seven days. Doing a science course!

Regards,

Psi

RBH said...

Cliff, you wrote
'
I believe the evidence for dinosaur extinction at 65myo is strong, and I do not believe humans shared the planet with them. But the drawings amount to evidence we did. I'm sure there is an evolutionary response to the dinosaur drawings, but I have never come across it.
.
I'm not sure what an "evolutionary" response would look like: I see no evolutionary question here. It's more a geological question.

My guess is that the explanation is at least four-fold: (1) Mistaking/wishfully thinking that prehistoric rough carvings/drawings of extant 'normal' critters are dinos -- reading a pre-conceived pattern into ambiguous figures. (2) Economic -- for example, both the ICA and Acambaro figures were 'excavated' and sold to collectors/true believers by indigenous people and were not excavated by professionals. As far as I know, no professional archaeologist has found a single example of either in situ. (3) Economic on the part of (at least some) true believers who peddle books about the "mysteries." (4) Lack of a control -- for example, the Cambodian temple carving cited as being of a stegosaurus is one of many thousands of carvings there. How many of those drawings are of unknown or mythical critters that don't look a little bit like a stego? That is, what's the likelihood that (again) identifying it as a stego is a post hoc pattern imposition on one of many critters some Cambodians made up out of their own imaginations? We see drawings of unicorns along with griffons, hydra's, gorgons, etc., from Europe Does that imply they actually existed there? Nope.

Cliff Martin said...

RBH,

I'll look at this line of "evidence" some more, but your comments will inform my search. Thank you.

Psiloiordinary said...

RBH,

You make good points. This is a sceptical investigation of an extraordinary claim similar to that for ghosts or UFO sightings.

Let's have a good look at the best evidence Cliff can find.

I did once debate an old stone carving with a YEC and my honest response was "It deos not look like a dinosaur the neck and head are all wrong. The legs are all the same size etc etc."

His response was "yes it does look like a dinosaur, you are an arrogant biased atheist XXXX".

Ah the joys of rational thought. I told him that I am not biased ;-)

Anyway I don't blame him, but his brain washers, of course.

Regards,

Psi