Creationists are not stupid

[Claymore]

I found this post in Jeff Hebert's blog, and I think he makes some good points.

Creationists Aren't Stupid
I once made a comment in a thread talking about a friend of mine who is a Young Earth Creationist (people who read Genesis literally and thus believe the universe is only 8,000 years old), saying that he was one of the smartest people I've ever known. Another reader responded with "Then you need to find some smarter friends".

A lot of people in the creationism debate have this same attitude, that clearly anyone who rejects the idea of an old universe is not just mistaken, but clearly mentally deficient. Some of that is just old-fashioned name-calling, denigrating your opponent like any two kids in a schoolyard brawl. But whatever the cause, the attitude that "If you disagree with me you're an idiot" is foolish and inaccurate, and we ought to stop doing it.

Because I stand by my statement that my friend the Young Earth Creationist is one of the smartest people I know. And here's why I say that.

This guy got an almost perfect score on his SAT when he went to college. He graduated with top marks from one of the best liberal arts and sciences schools in the country. He's a polymath and has unbelievable mental recall, storing everything from childhood phone numbers to the exact values of every rare US coin in history. He's got an intuitive feel for numbers that's pretty amazing. He's started multi-million-dollar businesses, asks penetrating questions, and researches topics of interest exhaustively. He has an incredible knowledge of US history as well as the Byzantine Empire. He was a key player on his university's debate team and can argue just about any side of an issue and by the end of the day have you thinking he's right, only to swap to the other side and convince you he's right on THAT one as well.

In short, he has every attribute of brilliance, except for his belief that the Earth is only eight thousand years old. Does that one failure negate everything else and make him an idiot?

Lots of the leaders of the creationist movement have advanced degrees, up to and including Ph.D.s. It takes a lot of work and at least minimal intelligence to achieve that academic level. No, it doesn't confer infallible genius, but it's also difficult to say that someone who's done it is simply a moron. They've got to have something on the ball that your typical resident of the local mental institution doesn't.

No, these people aren't stupid. They're wrong on the facts, they're willfully blind to dissenting information in many cases, they are as capable of lying and distortion and mistaken ideas as anyone, but they're not necessarily idiots just for dissenting with something you believe to be an objective, fundamental truth.

Calling them stupid is easy, but ultimately it's a cop-out. The thought that someone who's as smart as you could come to a conclusion that's so clearly wrong is frightening. It makes you doubt your own understanding, making you wonder if maybe being smart isn't as reliable a guide as you'd hoped. "If smart people can believe something so foolish," the internal thinking goes, "then what if I -- also a smart person -- believe foolish things as well? But surely that can't be, therefore ... he's an idiot!"

I think Michael Shermer does a great job in "Why People Believe Weird Things" exploring different ways intelligence can be used to protect wrong ideas once they've become internalized. In some respects the greatest strengths of a smart person become subverted, "turned to the Dark Side" as it were, marshaled to protect an idea that should have been shot down by them at the very beginning. But the very fact of their intelligence is what makes disabusing them of the wrong idea so difficult.

What he doesn't do -- and this is something I think those on "our side" of the discussion would do well to emulate -- is to dismiss them as "stupid". That kind of reflexive stereotyping precludes rational discussion rather than facilitates it. It's a lazy shortcut, a childish name-calling, and it's also factually untrue. For people who pride ourselves on honest, objective rationality, we can do better.

These people aren't stupid, they're just wrong.

Some of the comments are pretty interesting too, like one of his own responses to someone (plus some info on schizotypals):

My YEC friend has looked at all the evidence, and has decided that the Bible is more reliable than any scientific evidence that could ever be found. He decided this because the consequences to his faith if that is not true would be catastrophic, and he is unwilling to have his faith destroyed. He has no use for Christians who do not believe Genesis is literal truth, because in his mind the logical and theological difficulties posed thereby far outweigh the difficulties posed by science to the young earth theory.

He's looked at the evidence, weighed the damage each position would take on his faith, and has decided to go with the explanation that poses the least risk to his religious beliefs.

Looked at in that way, it's actually pretty understandable. My problem with it, of course, is that it isn't true that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and any God that would require me to believe it to prop up my faith in Him is not a God I have any interest in worshiping.

[icyrus]

It is a fair point, but what do you call someone who dismisses scientific evidence because they don't want to admit that they were wrong?

[BCO]

They're succumbing to self-confirmation bias, a well-known psychological phenomenon.

[Claymore]

It is a fair point, but what do you call someone who dismisses scientific evidence because they don't want to admit that they were wrong?

Pig-headed?

[icyrus]

Pig-headed?

And then what if they preach their personal beliefs to other more impressionable people as the truth?

[Tux]

It is a fair point, but what do you call someone who dismisses scientific evidence because they don't want to admit that they were wrong?

Prometheus or DoDo

[bk.ru]

Prometheus or DoDo

Ahmen.

[Nick333]

It depends on your definition of stupid. Abandoning logic, reason and evidence for the sake of your childhood security blanket is pretty stupid IMO.

[Prometheus]

It is a fair point, but what do you call someone who dismisses scientific evidence because they don't want to admit that they were wrong?

Human

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO PROMOTHEUS
Yes let’s call people refusing to accept:
1)Prophecies in the bible come to pass,
2)Palestine was never an autonomous state,
3)Abiogenesis- mathematically impossible,
4) at a loss to explain the position of a fossil fully haired, laying eggs, warm-blooded, no teats, feed babies through gaps in tummy, feet like a bird?
5)Prov26v4: Answer not a fool according to his folly,lest you also be like unto him,
6) If there is no life, there is no evolution,
This is also credible proofs which the non-religious forumites just refuse to accept...fools?

[Prometheus]

I think I'll rather not comment on that and simply take from another forumite: "It the shoe fits...". The wearer should know if it fits him/her whether they are willing to admit it or not. Also the old saying it takes one to know one. I think their comments speak for themselves. Wat die hart van vol is loop die mond van oor.
There's a nice Bible verse to sum it all up.

[Dr Seuss]

Yeah, but we all hold onto our security blankets. and not only with regard to debatable issues like how old the universe is, but in our personalities and sincere opinions we have of ourselves and others. a child grown up in an abusive household, for instance, will feel safer accepting themselves as worthy of abuse. it's harder to accept anything else, and it's hard to take the risk of admitting they might be worth something.

[FlyingPika]

It is a fair point, but what do you call someone who dismisses scientific evidence because they don't want to admit that they were wrong?

I keep reading that the earth is billions of years old, but they dont seem to have any evidence. Last time i checked they used circular reasoning (the layers of the earth are dated according to certain findings in them, and the findings are dated according to which layer they are found in) or dating methods with false assumptions (initial state assumptions). Some1 once took a branch that was struck by lightening and they where told him it was millions of yrs old. Other historical items with dates engraved in them show dates completely different to the dating results (which say items a few hundred yrs old are millions of years old). Must re believe historical data or the dating results?

So can some1 please state why you have faith that the earth is billions of years old? Or have you just heard it enough times that now it seems fact (ie brain washing).

[Nick333]

Yeah, but we all hold onto our security blankets. and not only with regard to debatable issues like how old the universe is, but in our personalities and sincere opinions we have of ourselves and others. a child grown up in an abusive household, for instance, will feel safer accepting themselves as worthy of abuse. it's harder to accept anything else, and it's hard to take the risk of admitting they might be worth something.

I agree. We are all stupid. But I would say that there are degrees of stupidity.

Also, abused people generally don't try and convince the rest of the world that they should also submit to abuse.

[FlyingPika]

And btw Claymore, dont worry how much people insult you, the bible says rejoice, because you are counted worthy to suffer for the gospel. If people wanna say its rubbish they not spiting you, just themselves. Often its more beneficial to pray against the spiritual strongholds over them then arguing with them.
Thankfully our job is just to tell them, not to convince them. It is only the Holy spirit that can draw the people to repentance through Jesus.

One day they will see, so no worries. Its just a pity some people want to trample Gods grace under foot and then they have to pay the high price for sinning against an infinitely Holy God. God paid the high price for them, but if they follow the God of this world to hell, its their freewill.
What must you do to be lost? Nothing.