It's the arrogance, stupid

Well, I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here again: PZ's talk started with the theme that it is not correct to assume that creationists are stupid. Face it, to many of us that is counterintuitive. PZ continued the talk by very effectively demonstrating that questions about evolution from creationists were not always simple to answer, I think making his point very well. He later talked about the Gish Gallop in contrast to the way in which science has to trudge through detailed explanations to make basic points, possibly several basic points, to underscore a single argument against a creationist claim. And so on.

I don't think that it is necessarily the case that people did not get this. But it is probably true that the kind of discussion that went on last night is too rare, and some perspectives and ideas take more than just the occasional evening to sink in.

The arrogance bit is a bit different, I don't think that was discussed enough at all. I made an off the cuff remark about arrogance somewhere (as a comment) that I should clarify. I think the definition of arrogance and the way it is operationalized are not always the same thing. It is pride and it is vanity, either way presented in an overbearing way, but that says nothing about whether the arrogance is about being right (and actually being right) or thinking you are right when you are not.

The same exact degree of pride is arrogance if one's pridefullness undue, and it is just pride when pridefullness is justified.

I think that faith feeds pride, and thus arrogance. The faithful seem to connect in pride, while perhaps rational people connect in shared knowledge and shared experience.

What is needed are more meetings like this one.

Of course, for some folks, calling creationism promoters and script-reciters "arrogant" is even more offensive than saying they are stupid.

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/07/28/update-where-we-are-n…

By the way, whatever happened to darling Hannah Maxson? I anxiously await the reappearance of that mathematical and biochemical savant on the creationism scene.

That question about one eye versus two is actually a good question, as you point out. Knowing the answer now, I can't say for sure if I would have even settled on the correct answer prior to learning it.

Many people are ignorant of how little they really know.

Are you sure that "rubbing the person's nose in it" is the best way to deal with arrogance? I'm not so convinced. In my experience, people bluster most when they know the least. An assertion made confidently is often not challenged, and sometimes other ignorant people assume the blusterer knows what he's talking about. If you challenge them directly, you make it into a personal attack. You're calling their bluff. You may embarrass them, which just leads to more bluster to cover up the embarrassment.

I think a better path to combat arrogance is to ask calm but persistent questions, in the style of the best cross-examinations or Socratic teaching. Start small, with obviously correct answers that anyone can agree with. Then move slowly into the implications of those questions, until you have the person agreeing with the exact opposite of what they were saying before. The person can save face because you're just asking questions, and you're asking ones they can agree with.

Sorry to thread-jack, but ...

Hey PZ, Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate in your state! How freaking awesome!

I expect, nay, demand, an insightful and humorous blog post about this development :-P

I am fond of saying that science is not about having the answers: it is about asking the questions. People often do not realise this, and think instead that science is merely a list of facts to be memorised. At some early point in our educations, this may be true (and certainly science has come up with several important facts that should be memorised) but the counterintuitive fact is that those facts are the products of science; science itself is the questions and the research and the work to answer those questions, not the answers themselves. This is one of the fundamental differences between science and religion, of course; we would have far fewer problems with Creationists and the like if more people understood this.

PZ, I really wish I lived closer, (or you came home to Washington!) to hear your discussions. You are the science professor I wish I had. Please let us readers know if your talks will be available on U-Tube or something.

I have been participating in long running forum discussions over on, of all things, a surfing web site http://forums.surf-station.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi on various subjects, climate change, evolution, politics, surfing, etc. The thing I find is that those who deny evolution is the best explanation, or that climate change is our fault, never listen to / read arguments to the contrary. They just continuously respond with the same old refuted claims. "The fossil record doesn't prove evolution is a fact". "The eye is too complicated". And on and on. They don't want to comprehend, so they don't. It's a willful ignorance backed up by a blind assurance.

llewelly: Many people are ignorant of how little they really know.

Possibly, but I for one have always subscribed to the idea that people are more concerned with not being wrong in an argument/debate, and will "intractify" themselves with regard to their position. This is to insulate themselves from being publicly humiliated for sounding incoherent, dumb, and otherwise mindless on a given subject.

It's part and parcel of why we have so many people making so many truly illogical arguments for so many bad/evil things these days. It's also the fuel that fires the engines of anti-intellectualism. Certitude and the group-based reaffirmation of it is a more powerufl aphrodesiac than getting your ass handed to you in front of others, and being forced to eat reality cake.

"Many people are ignorant of how little they really know."

I think it was Socrates that called this "double ignorance".

One quick thought ...

What I said about it was that if you've got any knowledge of biology at all, it seems trivial and rather stupid...

Well, there you go! "Trivial and uninformed"? Sure. But stupid?

Paste the title of your append on your bathroom mirror and contemplate ...

Nah, Kenneth. It's not about convincing the creationist/id preachers, it's about everyone else - the priority is making sure that ridiculous ideas are treated with ridicule.

The important word in that quote is seems, because what I was doing was saying it seems stupid, but it isn't.

But, OK, Scott, you've convinced me that I'm all wrong. The problem is stupidity. Some people think I'm saying it's stupidity when I'm saying the opposite, so I guess I'm going to have to consider myself refuted.

Ow. The seems stupid... it burns.

Not quite the same.

What is it with that word "seems"? Is it hard to notice, or partly invisible? A very similar error occured here just yesterday, and probably many times before that.

If I say "this phenomenon seems problematic"

and "this phenomenon is problematic"

and "this phenomenon seems to be problematic"

Which one means the opposite of the other two?

I've always felt that the definition of stupidity is willful ignorance.

People choose to be stupid, but sometimes can't help if they're ignorant.

I also attended the event last night. When PZ suggested that arrogance is the motivating emotion for creationists, I didn't really think that covered it.

When PZ was talking about the arrogance of the creationist leaders and spokespeople, well yes, arrogance certainly applies. But for most average people out there, like my parents etc., it is not arrogance that makes them cling to their "traditional" ideas. I think it is fear.

There is a lot of fear in letting go of ideas you are comfortable with and embracing new paradigms of thinking.

Think about it. If you're a creationist and you are contemplating the idea that evolution is true, what might be the consequences of accepting that notion? Like you said, they're not stupid. They will very quickly realize that they may need to rethink a lot of their beliefs. It can be very scary to be confronted with the prospect that everything you've been taught since childhood is a big lie. In response, some people lash out and some people just retreat to their safe cocoon with other like-minded people.

I think if a phenomenon seems problematic than, to the viewer, it is problematic because problematic is an attribute of the point of view.

But if something seems stupid it may not be.

Or am I just being arrogant or something?

I was recently accused of calling someone stupid in a discussion on a totally different subject. I asked the offended party to point out where I had even implied that they were stupid, and he couldn't of course, as I am scrupulously polite and respectful at all times. :-)

I think what it all boils down to is that if someone has a raging inferiority complex, they will infer an insult if you say "hello" with the wrong inflection.

I think if a phenomenon seems problematic than, to the viewer, it is problematic because problematic is an attribute of the point of view.

Oops, perhaps I chose an inappropriate example, sorry. Let's try again, using variations on the phrase:

"this sandwich seems to be made with whole-wheat bread"

I'm actually jacking the thread here, a little, by not talking about arrogance at all, and just focussing on one often-misread (?) word: "seems".

Sonja, you should have spoken up! A disagreement and discussion about the motivations of creationists would have been much more interesting than a testimonial to the power of Jesus' love in a good Christian's heart.

The distinction is between people who are honestly searching for answers but are ignorant and those who are trying to defend their religious worldview by remaining ignorant.

Willful ignorance is the enemy. How does one respect the position of someone who insists on willful ignorance? At some point repetitive explanations of the evidence over and over and over are not what's needed. There comes a time for shaming people who insist on remaining ignorant. Then scientists get accused of arrogance and being condescending. Oh well, some cases call for it unfortunately.

I agree completely, PZ. While it is ineffective to be terse and arrogant to one with a genuine interest in evolution, and who isn't merely using it as a strawman to maliciously destroy in order to make theism look better, it simply will not do to treat those who promote the ID agenda with any respect at all. Blatantly misleading the public is not a tolerable action, and it should be dealt with in a manner that humiliates those who wish to distort good science to their own foolish ends.

It may cause the scientists to look "rude" in the eyes of many, but very few will be able to look upon such a scene and think the scientist is therefore wrong.

Kenneth Fair: Are you sure that "rubbing the person's nose in it" is the best way to deal with arrogance?

Absolutely. You can ask as many patient questions you want, and the Arrogant Creationist will never admit fault. Ever. Recently a Creationist was trying to 'prove' the Trinity to me, and pointed out that everything comes in threes-- three phases of matter: solid, liquid, gas-- and I interrupted to correct him.

He Gish Galloped off to the next claim, and I had to haul him back to his 'phase' argument. He refused to admit error. That is arrogance.

Presuming that you can tease out a "Oh I didnt think about that!" or a "Oh thats a good point! Im wrong!" would mean the Creationist you were speaking with is humble-- That would be a real discussion, like PZ was talking about.
But the arrogant ones? The best you can do is ridicule the Creationist in front of others so others dont believe him/her.

I think you're also dealing with selective hearing among those who feel they are being criticized. Remember the old "Far Side" cartoon called "what a dog hears?" The canine character is looking at its human, and over the human's head is a talk bubble saying "bla bla bla bla bla bla go for a walk bla bla bla." When you speak, most of those creationist types are hearing "bla bla bla bla bla stupid bla bla bla." No amount of patient explanation can overcome that.

It's unfortunate, but many non-science people are very intimidated by anyone who speaks with a knowledge of biology (or other science) to any degree. I know from experience that most people's eyes glaze over when I speak about science in the simplest manner I possibly can--and I've only got a BS in zoology. I think that many of you in academia who work amongst other science scholars all day long tend to forget this.

PZ, I understand the frustration here. I wonder if you were to modify your assertion, perhaps phrasing it as,

What I said about it was that if you've got any knowledge of biology at all, it might seem trivial and rather stupid....,

you may appear just a little bit more humble--and approachable--to those non-scientists who are defensive.

> It isn't the scientists who are the arrogant ones in this debate, it's people who come out of 6th grade sunday school utterly convinced that they have all the answers.

PZ, you are onto something here. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian and, basically, this type of religion stunts your emotional, intellectual, and spiritual growth. Most people stall out at an adolescent phase (or regress to one if they convert at an older age). It seems to me that this is mostly tied to a need to have a black-and-white morality with no ambiguity, but that spills over into other areas as well. If complexity and ambiguity are seen as frightening and dangerous, then a simple answer is calming and safe. Basically, it is the old cliche "ignorance is bliss." Of course, I never thought I was ignorant, but in retrospect I was and I was intentinally keeping my head buried in the sand and not learning anything more outside the realm of my religion. I completely turned my faculties inward and into the Bible, so it seemed like I was pursuing intellectual goals, but in reality, I was just fending off fears.

Well, that's my 2-cents for whatever it's worth.

Donna

I gave the usual flippant response ("I was brought up a Lutheran...

That suggests an alternative punchline:

If the Reformation really happened, why are there still Catholics?

(No anti-Catholicism implied. :)

If Allah once walked the earth, then why are there still Christians of any kind?

What next? "It might possibly seem, to a superficial glance, almost as if it may look to the causal observer like maybe a tiny bit trivial and slightly stupid"?

Sorry, "casual" observer, of course.

PZ: I agree with your distinction regarding ignorance and arrogance. I also concur with Sonja's observation that fear drives the resistant of the ignorant. And, of course, some of the ignorant aren't all that bright, either.

I would add that, where the arrogant are concerned, many of them are driven by a lust for power and they are less concerned with the truthiness of their actual claims than with the perceived impact on their power structure should this or that claim be rejected.

To all: (heavy sigh) I'm not too fond of the above conclusions, mind you, but then reality is rarely convenient...SH

Typical liberal, doesn't care about other peoples' feelings, only that they have the right answer to everything.

Points to consider:
Fear is a huge factor for many of these people. Not so much of being wrong, thought it is also a factor, but of having the way the world makes sense to them get ripped away.

This is tied to moral development theory in that there are levels to moral development that some people never get beyond. It is neither good nor bad, just an observation of their capacity.

We are living in very uncertain times which can leave people open to seeking anything that gives them certainty, especially in light Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" wherein the personal and economic despair of millions of people makes them ripe targets for charlatans.

And let's not forget that there are still many people raised in families that are authoritarian patriarchies and this makes them particularly amenable to authoritarian charlatans.

As for the use of the word "stupid", the title of George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of An Elephant" should give you hint. It's like telling someone "don't look down" or telling kids to stay out of the liquor cabinet.

I do, however, agree about differentiating the use of patience between the ignorant but seeking and the arrogant. It is sometimes a hard call because I have a good friend who is absolutely certain that the rule of nature is competition and not cooperation. The foundation of her premise is completely unexamined but authoritatively asserted. I, on the other hand, have found too much evidence to support cooperation. Inter-species predation is another thing altogether though the social Darwinists continue to trot that out as any kind of reason for intra-species predation among human beings.

Whew. I'm done.

BlueIndependent said:

llewelly: Many people are ignorant of how little they really know.
Possibly, but I for one have always subscribed to the idea that people are more concerned with not being wrong in an argument/debate, and will "intractify" themselves with regard to their position. This is to insulate themselves from being publicly humiliated for sounding incoherent, dumb, and otherwise mindless on a given subject.

I see your observation as the other half of a positive feedback cycle (perhaps better termed a downward spiral). That people are ignorant of how little they know causes them to select an incorrect position in a debate. What you observe is what causes people to hold their incorrect position - preventing them from gathering the knowledge they might otherwise use to take up a better position next time.

PZ

Do not listen to this BS. I know, and I know you know, that most creationists are not simply Little Johnny out there trying to find out answers to biological questions due to their young minds and hearts desires to know about the world around them, but are adults certain they already know the absolute answer to everything, and are attempting to act as authorities by way of this...

I have debated many creationists, on-line, as well as in-person. I debated one creationist whose Bible group had set up in front of the University I was attending. The head of this group claimed Archaeopteryx was just a bird, but when I started to discuss the anatomy of the leg of Archaeopteryx, he became confused and asked me, "what was a femur?" He was certain Archaeopteryx was simply no different than any bird one would see today, but did not even know enough about basic anatomy to know the bones foun in a leg. I think most people will agree, speaking with authority on a matter that one knows so little about is the very definition of "arrogance".

Another common ploy for a creationist is claim authority by saying they do know the details involved in the biology very well. For example, I debated one creationist that claimed Piltdown is still used my modern evolutionary biologists, and, at the same time, he declared that there were no know fossil intermediates between man and the apes. It is not the silliness of the claims that got me, but the fact that this same person claimed to have been taught these ideas, not at church or some Bible study, but at a state University when he took Physical Anthropology, and Paleoanthropology etc...

Needless to say, when I asked him for the names of those teachers who taught the classes so I could e-mail them and ask them if any of his stated claims of being taught such were true, he suddenly could not remember their names.

The types of arrogance mentioned above, are some of the types of call-to-authority tactics creationists use most often, and after a while, yes, the arrogance of it all requires we hit these people head-on, and with little mercy.

It's as if the Creationists are wearing blinders that shut off a portion of their visual field. It's not correct to say that they're blind, nor is it wise to act as though they can't see anything. They can even demonstrate a low cunning and a studied technique for group manipulation.

Their sight is, however, self-crippled, and acting as though they can see clearly is just as dangerous.

I find the language tree a useful metaphor for some of this stuff. If Latin is a "dead language," then how can there still be French, Spanish, and Italian?

My girlfriend and I had a big conversation about this issue after the event last night, and she made a good point (after I was arguing that feeling cowed or afraid is the opposite of "arrogance," which seems to come more from a place of bravado and confidence). She said that fear is a very likely source for arrogance. And of course she's right. It's the fear of looking foolish that makes Pee-Wee Herman say, "I MEANT to do that" when he falls off his bike. He's not clumsy--he's talented! But I would still make a distinction between the people who are confident, educated, successful, and intelligent, and STILL insist they know better than reality does, compared to people who have been misled into thinking that if Darwin was right, they are "just animals" who don't matter, and they have no source for meaning or basis for morality. Those people might be "arrogant," too, but it's fed by lies and fear, and so I think we can afford to be more generous to such people, perhaps first assuring them that the fact of evolution does NOT make our lives meaningless, and does not make humans immoral. One need look no farther than Darwin himself to see that, as he was a tolerant, generous, and good-hearted person.

I had another experience last night that put this into stark context for me: I listened to the Albert Mohler Show on our local AM Christian talk radio station, and he had as his guest Dr. Kurt Wise, Professor of Science and Theology and Director of the Center for Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I believe Richard Dawkins once referred to Wise as the "biggest disappointment" he knew among scientists. Wise is arrogant in the worst possible sense of the term, because he is smart, well-educated, successful, and can have everything he wants, but he prefers to create his own reality rather than to accept reality as it is. I just can't conceive of anything more arrogant than saying "existence as I find it is not good enough for me; I will go beyond existence to create one of my own."

...

...

I'm thinking about "primitive" cultures throughout history who have suddenly been confronted with a technologically superior culture. The few examples I can think of, it seems to result in alcoholism, depression, self-destructive violence, etc. among the primitives.

I wonder if the speed of technological change is now such that both the tech culture and the primitive culture arise from the same population.

Okay, come to think of it, Alvin Toffler wrote a whole book, "Future Shock," about it. But I wonder if we shouldn't bring that concept into the current discussion, and see if it leads anywhere.

My first reaction to people who mistrust evolution or science is usually irritation. If I walk into a café featuring a huge buffet line, I don't want to sit next to the guy who whines throughout the meal about being hungry. If the food's there, just bloody well EAT.

I can imagine complaining if food was incredibly expensive, or fiercely guarded from public access. But the banquet of knowledge, of science, features a table groaning with rich, satisfying selections, and it's FREE. And yet some among us can't take the trouble to get a plate. It seems they'd rather starve than go to the trouble of learning new stuff.

Because of what? Fear? Confusion? Conquered Culture Syndrome?

Jeez.

I don't know a LOT of scientists personally, but the ones I DO know never once think about shoving their ideas onto others - about "conquering" people with their ideas.

But I've met probably hundreds of godders, in person and online, who want their ideas adopted by everybody else. And many of them seem all too open to the use of force, or threats, or sneak attacks ("intelligent design" in schools, etc.), to achieve that.

The force always seems to come from the godder side. Anytime an equal venue is even attempted, they seem to see it as some kind of personal assault.

There was a "debate" here several months back between a local newspaper columnist and a invited DI creationist. The nice Christians spent weeks organizing large numbers to get there an hour early to pack the hall so nobody else could even get in ... and then proceeded to act like a Jerry Springer audience for the creationist.

It's like that recent CNN "Why are atheists so hated?" segment. Never occurred to them to invite an atheist to the panel.

A rabbit walks into a bobcat bar, and the bobcats all get up and start yowling "You're hateful! You're oppressing us!"

Only in this case, the rabbit didn't even get to walk in.

...

...

Sorry, one more thing. I have a question for the creationists: why can't God be the author of evolution?

What I'd really like to see is a debate between the Hindus and Christians on the age of the earth given the length of time a kalpa covers. Indian philosophy seems to revel in boggling the mind.

BlueIndependent wrote:

but I for one have always subscribed to the idea that people are more concerned with not being wrong in an argument/debate, and will "intractify" themselves with regard to their position

Yes, agreed, we all have the tendency to do that once we've taken a strong stand on an issue. That's why it's important to spend a long time in information-gathering mode before drawing conclusions.

I have a question for the creationists: why can't God be the author of evolution?

That is a breathtakingly stupid question.

Kenneth Fair wrote:

I think a better path to combat arrogance is to ask calm but persistent questions, in the style of the best cross-examinations or Socratic teaching.

I agree. I use this technique as a teacher; once the person realizes that his current beliefs cannot provide the correct answers, he's open to new beliefs that do.

I believe, though, this technique requires a higher level command of the issues than does the ridicule strategy.

Sonja, you should have spoken up! A disagreement and discussion about the motivations of creationists would have been much more interesting than a testimonial to the power of Jesus' love in a good Christian's heart. -- PZ

Thanks. The other comment I wanted to make was about strategy. My degree is in political science (not real science), but I know a little about working for social change. When you talk about changing people's opinion about evolution, it is not necessary to worry about the far-right, batshit-crazy creationist loons.

All social change happens at the margins.

To get the votes we need to keep the entire country from turning into Texas is only a few percentage points.

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that you moderate your views. Just don't get frustrated if Jonathan Wells doesn't see the light tomorrow. In the long run it will be better to get 5 high school kids interested in science.

"Sorry, one more thing. I have a question for the creationists: why can't God be the author of evolution?"

Because evolution isn't in the Bible.

Evolution IS in the bible. The people of Abraham were excellent breeders of herd animals, for instance. The scriptures related to priestly duties attended to issues of cuckoldry. The leverite marriage and other aspects of kinship abide by Hamilton's Rule of genetical relatedness. The bibles is, in fact, steeped in evolution.

When PZ was talking about the arrogance of the creationist leaders and spokespeople, well yes, arrogance certainly applies. But for most average people out there, like my parents etc., it is not arrogance that makes them cling to their "traditional" ideas. I think it is fear.

That's absolutely right. Coming out of a fundie family, I was always taught that I was teetering on the edge of an eternity in damnation. Who wants to risk being pushed over?

I sometimes think that people who de-convert from Lutheran, Anglican, or less hellfire-emphasizing backgrounds don't really understand, on any visceral level, the absolute, constant, sleep-destroying terror of wondering if at literally any moment the Rapture might happen, and you might instantly be burning for eternity, with no way out, ever...if God caught you at a bad time.

I could only begin to investigate evolution after I stopped believing in--and fearing--hell.

That's why it's such a potent meme. That seems to be a point missed by those who lost a more kindly faith than the one my family had.

"Rubbing people's noses in it" is the worst way to handle arrogance. It only hardens the arrogant person's position and makes them even less receptive to being corrected than he or she was before. A better tactic is actually play to the person's arrogance to get them to see the error in their beliefs.

I have a question for the creationists: why can't God be the author of evolution?

It would imply God loves parasites , painful diseases that kill millions, incontinence, fratricide, infanticide - an endless list of horrors.
Furthermore - it's not without other problems. If God is the author - why is there no evidence of God's intervention(s)?
I've wanted, for many years, to believe 'God as the author of evolution' is an important step forward for theists; that it is less contradictory and less crazy than most religious texts. But I've come to view parasites as a major stumbling block for the idea that 'God is the author of evolution' is a step forward. On the other hand ... I suspect most of those liable to accept 'God is the author of evolution' are not likely to know much about parasites, or to think too deeply about what the existence of predators and diseases implies about God.

Evolution IS in the bible.

And thanks to this blog, I learned that evolution was first postulated by the Pharisees.

I could only begin to investigate evolution after I stopped believing in--and fearing--hell.

This is something that was hard for me to relate to because, although I've been an atheist for ~30 years, my mainline protestant background held that hell is the absence of god. I was also taught that the hellfire and brimstone threats were false additions based on ignorance.

The very rational and concilliatory approach of that type of religion actually created a different type of barrier to moving to atheism: there was no great incentive or need to reject a compassionate, reasoning faith.

Meanwhile, many of my atheist friends rejected the primitive, anti-intellectual BS that was rampant in the churches they attended as kids.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Arrogance. The common theme in creationist objections, in the letters I get, in the whole damn culture war, is that creationists arrogantly assume that their ignorance is shared and that it is a valid data point in our explanations of the world.

hmm, isn't that more commonly called projection?

My conclusion from it all was that if we want to find the reason for the creationist problem, it isn't in simple stupidity. I don't even fault them for ignorance--that may ultimately be a significant part of the problem, but correcting ignorance is our business. So what is the root of the creationist conflict?

Arrogance. The common theme in creationist objections, in the letters I get, in the whole damn culture war, is that creationists arrogantly assume that their ignorance is shared and that it is a valid data point in our explanations of the world.

Very well said.

OK, I've never discussed with a cre_ti_nist, but all cranks I have encountered are firmly convinced that everyone is just as ignorant as they are.

BTW, Lago, why did you say "femur" and not "thighbone"? OK, you can't do that with "tarsal", but still, why did you use an insider term that has a perfectly good everyday synonym in a conversation with a non-insider?

Kenneth Fair wrote:

I think a better path to combat arrogance is to ask calm but persistent questions, in the style of the best cross-examinations or Socratic teaching.

Don't forget that Socrates was executed for corrupting the minds of the youth with reason.

I have to agree with PZ, be kind and calm with kind and calm people, but arrogant people only respond to fear and humiliation, or else they wouldn't be arrogant in the first place.

my mainline protestant background

Interestingly, mainstream Catholicism is the same*. (I wasn't explicitely taught that fire & brimstone was false, but it was unmistakably implied that such naturalistic descriptions for such metaphysical concepts were rather childish.)

* Remember that the Pope is the one who gets to decide what mainstream Catholicism is. Not Mel Gibson, and not even Cardinal Schönborn.

Interestingly, mainstream Catholicism is the same*. (I wasn't explicitely taught that fire & brimstone was false, but it was unmistakably implied that such naturalistic descriptions for such metaphysical concepts were rather childish.)

If "mainstream" Catholicism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, it certainly teaches the doctrine of hell as a place or state of profound and eternal suffering, as punishment for sin. It's right there in the Catholic Catechism. I'm sure many liberal American Catholic priests and educators are rather embarrassed by this teaching and tend to ignore or downplay it in their sermons and classes, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of Catholic doctrine.

Oh, some of them probably are stupid, not just seeming that way.

And then every once in a while you run into something that just defies explanation.

Did you hear the one about the Georgia state representative who asked his friend in the Texas legislature to circulate a petition calling for the end of teaching of evolution -- because evolution is the position the Pharisees took?

No, I'm not making that up. It would be impossible to make such stuff up. Here's a link to the Dallas Morning News story: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xaavz

You're a brave man, P.Z.!

"I think species should have evolved first with only one eye. After realizing that one eye cannot create depth perception, nature would have generated another eye following thousands of years of evolution. We know this is not true. Someone or something already knew that one eye would not be enough."

Ah, but if you are a truly adept designer, do you stop when you have reached the "good enough" stage? Would not your designs be so great that they could not be further improved? In other words, why two eyes only, and not three, four or more? Who needs stereo-optic vision only when I could have 360 degree vision?

Jason is correct.

Remember that the Pope is the one who gets to decide what mainstream Catholicism is.

maybe, but most catholic clergy will tell you there is a large margin between what the heirachy states and what the congregations really believe.

Some years ago, my wife's father suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on one half of his body. When we visited him shortly after his stroke, he denied that he suffered a stroke and insisted he could move his arm and leg. He could not. But he was insistent that he could, even to the point of arrogance. At first, I thought he was just bitter and playing some sort of a game, but his physician told me that "denial" is a common side effect of strokes affecting this part of the brain. It was very bizarre and very sad.

The term for this condition is "Anosognosia" from the Greek "nosos" = disease and "gnosis" = knowledge.

According to Wiki, the cause of anosognosia following a stroke is not well understood, and "Although largely used to describe unawareness of impairment after brain injury, the term 'anosognosia' is now also used to describe the lack of insight shown by some people who suffer from psychosis, and who may be unaware that their outlandish beliefs and experiences are in any way unusual."

I am new to this board, and perhaps this term has already been suggested as one that could be used to describe the thinking of at least some creationists. The most vocal creationists are certainly not ignorant of the facts of evolution. They have heard them over and over again. ("You have had a stroke.") And many are certainly not stupid, being perfectly capable of lucid thought in many other areas of their lives. But when it comes to evolution, something has come unglued. They are simply unable to recognize their disease.

I could not convince my father in law he had suffered a stroke. And I do not think we can convince many creationists that they are suffering from evolution. But as others have pointed out, while we may not be able to convince the creationist of their anosognosia, we should where possible attempt to point out the illness to others and thereby minimize the destructive impact of this affliction on society.

JR

One should first note that the tone PZ is using is not the same one that he used around a year ago. This softer approach was not his preferred mode not too long ago. I suppose I mostly like it, but I would hate for the appropriate level of abuse, including the label "stupid", to come under attack in all contexts.

Actually, "stupid" might come closer to describing the ID/C position better than does "arrogant". "Stupid" may very well refer generally to a collective native intelligence/education matter affecting the person who prattles on about what he doesn't understand, while "arrogant" is a term bound to mischaracterize many who have learned what they "know" in at least as humble a manner as the rest of us have learned actual science.

Of course it seems arrogant for a person lacking any basic knowledge of biology to come along with their little "proofs" against evolution, however that is what they know from those who were supposed to honestly and intelligently teach them about origins, life, the universe, etc.... You know, parents, pastors, "scientists" like Behe (ok, he no doubt fits the minimal requirements for "scientist" in chemistry, but not outside of there), and the "holy book".

Case in point on the "stupid" label: Is DaveScot truly a retard, or is he reasonably intelligent? Or is that really the question? Look, when it comes to a belligerent know-nothing in the sixth-grade, it matters a great deal whether the person has native intelligence or is simply ignorant. When the same guy is ~60 yrs., the point is nearly moot, at least outside of his specialty (I'll grant that DaveTard might be adequate in programming, but not in anything he "discusses" at UD). Intelligence and knowledge have to converge, or neither is of much account.

But as to arrogance, it's more specific than the term "stupid". The fact is that it's much the way that IDists and creationists are "taught" about evolution and creation that sets them up for a great fall, or, to hold to the most absurd positions no matter what is thrown at them.

The trusted "teacher" asks the naive little creationist what it is that makes scientists believe (or have faith in) evolution as they do. And either the naive creationist comes up a few little things, like some "purported transitionals", homologies, genetics, or more likely, the "teacher" provides this "knowledge". Then the trusted "teacher" utterly "demolishes" these evidences using quote mines from supposed authorities, through "arguments", and by "showing the impossibility of evolution". Thus it is "demonstrated" that the scientists are in fact blind leaders who are so dedicated to their "religion" of atheism and/or Darwinism that they don't even understand that Archaeopteryx is just a bird, that Neanderthals were virtually like us, that Piltdown was conjured up solely to supply intermediates which don't really exist (as if!), and that it makes perfect sense for the designer to morph a fin into a bird's wing.

My point being that it all looks so convincing to most creationists (although when I was young and creationist I continued to fear Archaeopteryx, no matter what they said) that they actually look at us like we look at them, as deluded know-nothings who simply won't look at the evidence. The picture painted by the creationists makes creation look reasonable, while evolution is simply a prejudice held by people who indeed have the education and evidence that ought to turn them into creationists, but whose arrogance, biased educations, and fear of crossing the powerful "Darwinists", prevents them from seeing what is plain as day.

That isn't arrogance in the most usual sense, it is adherence to the worldview that is all that they know. It's ignorance first of all, yet in the broad sense it is also stupid because it bases everything upon the claims of one side without even considering the arguments and evidence of the other side.

One should never forget how sheltered many creationists have been from the "evil influences" of the atheists and other such-minded ones. Home-schooling, religious schools, and express commands not to believe anything those evolutionists say (coupled with a few "proofs" against evolution) prevent many from ever dealing with the evidence in a competent manner. I was told not to read the "Evolution" section of the encyclopedias (yes, I read encyclopedias as a kid), that generally the theory of evolution was devised by Satan's agents to appear reasonable to those who weren't firmly grounded in Scriptures. How does one get around these sorts of barriers?

Well, I read encyclopedias, and Science News, while in grade school. The whole "don't read evolution" business really sounded contrived to me, since surely we ought to be able to see through abject lies. And when I was of the age of 15 I knew that I ought to consider both sides, that it was indeed unlikely that scientists had no answers to the creationism I had been taught. But that's the kid who reads science and encyclopedias, not the one who learns enough to get by and then go out and play ball, thus unconsciously fulfilling some of the predictions of evolutionary theory.

The point is that these people know the "killers", or what Carl Baugh said the other day on TBN, the "smoking guns" against evolution (that so many stars would have to be produced in the universe, when we haven't seen one produced, was one of his "smoking guns". Don't tell me that's not abysmally stupid). They don't know everything, but they know what makes evolution "impossible", which is good enough for them. If they went through the teens and twenties without ever thinking, "Gee, the scientists might actually have counter-arguments" like I did, they are very unlikely to do so later.

Behe played this angle to the hilt in a presentation I heard recently. He said that everyone (he underlined "everyone") agrees that aspects of organisms appear to be designed, an absolute lie that many swallowed (in Q & A sessions several predicated questions on this particular lie). He claimed that he was concerned about a mistaken claim made by Russell Doolittle that, had it been true, would have called into question his "IC" statements regarding the clotting cascade--while totally ignoring the simpler clotting cascade in lobsters mentioned by Ken Miller and others (which was not mistaken, unlike Doolittle's claim). And he said that biologists insist on fitting everything into the Darwinist paradigm, even though in a later Q & A session he noted that non-Darwinian evolution is given a hearing by scientists, just not "evolution" that finds purpose in the range of life (how would one do that, Behe?).

I say this because the mostly religious folk who went and heard him appear to have swallowed his claims without questioning, and certainly without any counter-knowledge. Why not? He's a scientist, isn't he? Why would he lie? He was exposing the falseness of the other scientists, wasn't he?

Those questions seem reasonable to many many people, and they are far more ignorant than they are arrogant in "thinking through" what they "learned" from Behe.

And the fact is that the questions PZ said weren't stupid are stupid in a way. The two-eye question would be intelligent if it came from a bright kid, however it is a talking point from ID/Cs who are deliberately raising such questions without in the least providing the honest answers of scientists. These are questions meant to keep people ignorant, or "stupid", they are not honest questions. True, the person who brings them up may do so honestly, however the chain prior to his question is not characterized by honesty, it is characterized by willful ignorance and the desire to "do in" evolution rather than to deal with evolutionary concerns honestly.

It all depends on context, of course, whether one should call such questions stupid, arrogant, or some other thing. There are honest creationists, who might in many cases be led to an honest consideration of evidence and of what might occur in evolution. We don't meet many of those on these forums any more, however, which is why I'm happy to call most, but not all, ID/Cs "stupid", or something like that.

In the sense of "stupid is as stupid does", there is nothing untrue in calling, say, Behe, or Jason Rennie, stupid. Behe, in particular, ought to know better, but as far as I can tell, mostly does not (yes, he skews his criticisms to the easy stuff, yet he seems not to fully comprehend how much he really doesn't know). As such, his arguments and his whole line of "reasoning" to the "designer" is utterly stupid and bankrupt, no matter the level of his "native intelligence". His pig-ignorance forfeits the capacity to use any intelligence he does have, hence there is little reason not to call his ID "stupid".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

I don't think that anyone has ever asked me, "If we evolved, why are there still monkeys?" but if they do, I'm prepared to answer, "I dunno. Did your uncle die when you were born?"

my mainline protestant background held that hell is the absence of god. I was also taught that the hellfire and brimstone threats were false additions based on ignorance.

Out of curiosity, how did they deal with the Gospel verses where Jesus refers to being cast into "the fire that does not die"?

Regarding the discussion of fear as the root of creationist arrogance, I'll immodestly recommend my post of three years ago on Panda's Thumb.

I think fear is at the root not only of the arrogance, but of the amazingly powerful cognitive filtering that insulates creationists from contrary data -- it's the triumph of Piagetian assimilation over accommodation. When changing one's belief system entails (within that belief system) putting one's immortal soul and that of one's children at risk of eternal damnation, the filters get really really effective.

Damien -

In the churches I have seen that believe this, they justify it the same way they justify evolution - in the belief that scripture is not the infalible word of God. Same as myself really. There is ample evidence that just on the path of translation and transcription alone, it has been distorted and altered - to fit notions of the day, political expiediency.

RBH -
I think fear is at the root not only of the arrogance, but of the amazingly powerful cognitive filtering that insulates creationists from contrary data -- it's the triumph of Piagetian assimilation over accommodation. When changing one's belief system entails (within that belief system) putting one's immortal soul and that of one's children at risk of eternal damnation, the filters get really really effective.

I think this is exctly why the notion of hell, as eternal torment, rather than simply being seperated from God, made it into the bible. It is why it felt like a huge vice that had been gripping me, most of my life, suddenly was released, the first time I said that I do not believe in hell as it is described in the bible. It by no means assuaged all of the fear, a lifetime of belief had built, but it went a long way towards tearing it down. It is an incredible tool for certain.

I wrote this excuse for poetry several years ago, and it seems appropriate here:

There are those I love who claim that I mislead,
say I'm driven my some godless need:
they hold me in contempt, they hold me to the letter,
they do not hold me at all, they do not know any better;
My God! What will they say next?
That the KJB is a science text?
But the face of nature is an open book,
It's written all around: why don't they care to look?
They are afraid: surprisingly,
they are afraid, or so it seems to me,
they are afraid of the unrolling of a scroll,
they are afraid that God might've first made girls,
they are afraid of kinship with the natural world,
they are afraid of Darwin's Island.

Damien asked: Out of curiosity, how did they deal with the Gospel verses where Jesus refers to being cast into "the fire that does not die"?

Well, we're talking more than 30 years ago, so forgive me if I'm a bit sketchy here.

For the most part, these phrases were taken as metaphoric speech that is best interpretted in ways that make a coherent and ethically consistent whole of the teachings in the New Testament. The Old Testament was prelude to the New, and quite interesting (especially to very young kids who like adventure stories and mysteries) but it was the teachings in the New Testament that were given precedence.

Also, I never once experienced any hostility from ministers or Sunday School teachers for questioning the logic or morality of any part of the Bible. That sort of close inspection was actively encouraged. If I had not married a hard-line atheist, I may have remained a rather content pantheist. But I chose strong atheism and have never regretted it. It's the intellectually honest position.

Perhaps everyon should remeber that:

Ignorance is cureable, by adding knowledge, and assimilating it.

Stupidity is not cureable - and usually kills innocent bystanders.

It surprises me that so few people in this conversation, including PZ, are using the knowledge of human nature gleaned from the people they're most familiar with - themselves. Think, now: When you've had an important sea change in your thinking - creation to evolution, Lutheran to atheist, or anything similar - was it ever because someone carefully explained to you knowledge you hadn't been aware of, or because someone rubbed your nose in your arrogance?

First principles: Something my mother once said, when I expressed the wish a friend might eventually change ingrained behavior - "Jud, people don't change, they just become more like themselves." Or, as they used to say in Oklahoma back when I lived there - "Never try to teach a pig to talk. You won't succeed, and it aggravates the pig." Now is it really that bad, in terms of trying to change deeply held beliefs? Almost always, yes. It's an unpleasant waste of two people's time.

Then how do we change what other people think? The key is, *we* don't. If people change such beliefs, they almost always do it on their own. ("The light bulb has to want to change," as the old joke goes.) What we can do is put the information out there for them, as often and as clearly as possible. If folks run across it often enough, and nagging thoughts in the backs of their minds turn into "Hey, this makes sense to me. Why didn't I ever see this before?" - well then, good on them, and good on us for putting the information there to be found.

The people of Abraham were excellent breeders of herd animals, for instance. Posted by: Greg Laden

You mean the part where they thought that waving wands in front of the aninals would determine their fur colour? Or the part where they thought that bats were birds?

The fact that they knew tha animals had offspring is not the same as evolution.

I was raised in a heterodox but religious family, but grew up to be a stiff-necked non-believing scientist. I applaud the efforts of anyone willing to get into the mix and advocate for science. Some of the participants in this sort of dialog are lost causes, I suppose, but those at the margins, as Sonja mentioned, are both reachable and worth the effort.

The fundamental problem I see when I discuss fractious issues like evolution with family and friends who are deeply religious isn't arrogance or stupidity, as much as it is a deep difference in one premise, about what constitutes a reason for belief.

Apportioning belief to evidence makes the most sense, and is the cornerstone of science, but it just isn't self-evident to people that this is the best way to proceed. It is a hard-won fruit of a lot of human thought and reflection that our culture unfortunately insulates people from encountering. To the extent a person is not persuaded of this, they are, in my opinion, unreachable.

In some sense, the fact that charlatans arise that distort science becomes a reason for hope. If the need for reasons and evidence wasn't recognized as logically prior to faith or the authority of a magic book or holy person, there would be no need to appeal to goofy pseudoscience. The existence of pseudoscience, while vexing, is a deep and exploitable hole in the armor of faith. Some, maybe most people who seek it out are looking for emotional security, but appealing to evidence at all can ultimately undermine this.

"If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys" is easily responded to with "Nothing in evolution says that parents have to die just because children are born." This addresses the evolution side in a manner accurate but simplistic enough to address the point. Any follow-ups can be pursued from there.

"I think species should have evolved with only one eye" is answerable in many ways. Perhaps the simplest is: "Species *were* born with only one eye; it was a far simpler eye than you or I have, but ours have evolved a long way from their origins."

The creationist position is nothing more than one of rank, wide-eyed fear; fear of being in the minority, or worse, alone; fear of having no one to love you; fear of being wrong; fear of burning in Hell, etc.

But those who claim Hell is merely the absence of a god ought to look around. We're living in *that* "Hell" right now!

Ian

"But those who claim Hell is merely the absence of a god ought to look around. We're living in *that* "Hell" right now!"

Only early in the morning. See, the truth is that hell is the absence of coffee.

I think the arrogance of ordinary people who don't believe in evolution is just an example of the arrogant attitude people typically take towards fields they haven't studied. When you haven't studied something, it's easy to think there isn't really much to it, and thus that your own conjectures/common sense are relevant to understanding it.

MJ Memphis -

That's simply evidence for more than one sort of hell. For me (as a relatively recent doctors visit demanded), hell is the absence of coffee and the cigarettes - one I have been living in for over a month. . .A couple of years ago, I thought hell was the absence of the marijuana - before that, it was the absence of the sex, drugs and rock & roll. I think the worse hell that could exist on earth would be the absence of learning new things.

Arrogance is a personality trait that exists independently of your belief system. It certainly isn't unique to the creationist mindset, and so isn't a productive assertion to make if you sincerely want to talk through any of this with people who have strong faith.

If you do detect arrogance in discussions with people from opposing viewpoints, it should be pretty obvious that it is also non-productive to respond with spite, malice, and all the other childish attitudes we take on when our emotions are aroused.

At some point you will be able to tell that persuasion is not going to take place, or that all the necessary clarifications have been made and the topic won't advance, and that is when the discussion should just close - nothing will come out of abusive rants, though I suppose you could reinforce the arrogance of the person holding the opposing viewpoint.

Take a look at this thread as an example of how I think (not just) scientists *should* behave during discourse on these topics.

Note she's not convincing anyone participating in the thread of anything, but a thread lurker can get something out of the point-counterpoint exchange between the two sides even though the creationists are behaving arrogantly and lobbing zingers everywhere.

The only reason you can take something away from this thread is because the scientist in the discussion is decidedly not following the advice recommended in this posting.

Echoing Jud:

Have you ever seen arrogant people cease to be arrogant after "having their noses rubbed in it"?

Some of the most arrogant people ever were the British in colonial India. Gandhi was not a powerful opponent because he "rubbed their noses in it" -- he never did that. Instead he cared about changing their minds rather than punishing them.

This thread has cemented a personal educational goal, which is to answer the question: Why do people believe whatever it is that they believe? What makes a particular argument or set of evidence subjectively persuasive to one person, but not to another? (including the case where the two people are the same person at different times). It's sort of on the edge between epistemology and psychology, with science and religion providing ample case study material.

I have, of course, run across answers to this question, just not in as much depth as I'm looking for.

When you speak, most of those creationist types are hearing "bla bla bla bla bla stupid bla bla bla."

Should I be concerned that this is often what I, an atheist, hear when creationists speak?

To kemibe's question - I think if you can't understand what a creationist is saying to you, then you are unlikely to be able to have any effect whatsoever on their perceptions, largely because you won't be able to frame your arguments in terms that they can relate to.

Understanding their perspective helps, and can at least help you avoid pitfalls that lead to mindless namecalling when it comes to the topic of human origins. Still, there is no formula for changing anyone's mind when their convictions are so strongly held.

Creationism arises from theism, so if you hope to have a chance of influence in a discussion with a creationist, you're going to need to know enough about their perspective that you can present evolution in terms that does not start off with a wholesale rejection or lambasting of their theology.

By the way, for a wonderful example of physicists treating one another in the same fashion we often see creationists and naturalists, see this exchange.

You don't need to understand the science that's being discussed in that exchange in order to see why PZ's proscription in this post doesn't help anyone, anywhere, in any discipline.

Out of curiosity, how did they deal with the Gospel verses where Jesus refers to being cast into "the fire that does not die"?

I bet that's considered a metaphor. "Die", when applied to "fire", is already a metaphor.

JR: I suspect (based on my layman's understanding of the condition) that what happens in anosognosia is damage to monitoring systems in part. Similarly with creationists, etc. They are truly igorant because they do not know that they do not know. The comparison with those who argued futilely with Socrates is quite apt, for those who mentioned it.

My conclusion from it all was that if we want to find the reason for the creationist problem, it isn't in simple stupidity. I don't even fault them for ignorance--that may ultimately be a significant part of the problem, but correcting ignorance is our business. So what is the root of the creationist conflict?

Arrogance. The common theme in creationist objections, in the letters I get, in the whole damn culture war, is that creationists arrogantly assume that their ignorance is shared and that it is a valid data point in our explanations of the world.

Very well said.

OK, I've never discussed with a cre_ti_nist, but all cranks I have encountered are firmly convinced that everyone is just as ignorant as they are.

BTW, Lago, why did you say "femur" and not "thighbone"? OK, you can't do that with "tarsal", but still, why did you use an insider term that has a perfectly good everyday synonym in a conversation with a non-insider?

my mainline protestant background

Interestingly, mainstream Catholicism is the same*. (I wasn't explicitely taught that fire & brimstone was false, but it was unmistakably implied that such naturalistic descriptions for such metaphysical concepts were rather childish.)

* Remember that the Pope is the one who gets to decide what mainstream Catholicism is. Not Mel Gibson, and not even Cardinal Schönborn.

Out of curiosity, how did they deal with the Gospel verses where Jesus refers to being cast into "the fire that does not die"?

I bet that's considered a metaphor. "Die", when applied to "fire", is already a metaphor.