... on Question whether Creationists are Insane (actually posed on quora)

Q

Are people who believe in creationism actually insane?
https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who-believe-in-creationism-actually-insane

I

Jake Warble

Answered 1h ago

Believing that “Belief in (insert anything here) = insane” feels kind of… ridiculous to me.

But not insane.

II

Aveek Sarkar

Answered 1h ago

It's who believes in evolution insane

III

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Reed

Alexander Hogg

Systems Engineer at Siemens (2016-present)

Answered 1h ago

Are you always this much of a nasty troll? DV.

Martin Reed

1h ago

It’s a genuine question. One of the most widely used criteria for testing insanity is testing for an ‘idee fixe’. This is an idea that the patient has stuck in his head which he adheres to despite any evidence presented to him which contradicts it. In order to explain any contradictions patients will often resort to the most complex and byzantine explanations as to how their idea is still true, even though it appears not to be. Thus, a patient might believe he is a horse, when asked to outrun a horse, he might claim that he is a lame horse, etc. Isn’t this just what creationists do? When presented with fossil evidence they claim that God put a false trail there as a test. So God lied (or made efforts to deceive). I’m not a Christian, but this seems to be somewhat sacrilegious to me; far less so than the idea that much of the bible is metaphorical. If it is to be taken literally, will astronauts shortly find God in his heaven above us - as it clearly states in the bible they should?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

“One of the most widely used criteria for testing insanity is testing for an ‘idee fixe’. “

This is one reason why psychiatry cannot be taken as a correct and ethical science or practise.

“This is an idea that the patient has stuck in his head which he adheres to despite any evidence presented to him which contradicts it.”

Who would decide whether the evidence presented to someone contradicts his belief? He? Then noone is insane. The one prejudiced against the belief? Then everyone he examines is insane.

“ Thus, a patient might believe he is a horse, when asked to outrun a horse, he might claim that he is a lame horse, etc.”

Does it strike you as somewhat different believing one is a horse when being a man from having a theory of the universe?

In the case given, a look in the mirror or self observation of eating habits would quite convince any normal person he is not a horse.

This is very much more to the point than possibly “byzantine” or “intricate” character of explanations why the evidence is not really evidence against his being a horse. Actually, the example you gave, was a fairly straightforward one, not an intricate one.

That description by a psychiatrist totally misses the point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

“ If it is to be taken literally, will astronauts shortly find God in his heaven above us - as it clearly states in the bible they should?”

Finding God would be beyond fix stars.

I have no problem - as yet - with fix stars being one light day away.

Also, getting up above that limit one has to pass pearly gates.

I don’t think an astronaut who hasn’t died will.

I also don’t think that an astronaut who has lived a bad life will.

But taking the Bible literally has always been done very much by Christians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Isn’t this just what creationists do? When presented with fossil evidence they claim that God put a false trail there as a test.”

No.

Not the branch considered as “creation science” anyway.

We generally claim the fossil is probably from the Flood or (in my case) sometimes from just after the Flood.

IV

Bruce Doran

Answered 1h ago

No.

But they either lack intellects worthy of respect, are posturing to an uneducated audience for some cynical reason, or are members of that audience.

In the 21st Century, you cannot be intelligent, relevantly educated, and a believer in creationism.

Pick two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

32m ago

I pick three.

Bruce Doran

20m ago

I am prepared to believe you are all three, in abundance, and with distinction.

What I should have said is relevantly educated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

I’d pick all three on that one too.

Bruce Doran

13m ago

If you’ve had a paper espousing creationist views accepted in Nature or Cell recently, I humbly defer.

Otherwise I think you’d find raw exposure to a group of people equipped with the education I describe to be an enlightening experience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Oh, you meant educated so as to be brain washed to accept scientific articles only from Evolutionist publications?

In that case I don’t pick your version of “educated”.

It is more like Evolution biassed scientists are shunning too much exposure to me.

I was asking Ilya Usoskin to test my model (not saying it was mine and not giving exact details, but frame work for diverse quantities on three parameters) on carbon 14 build up, and he had no time.

He is a physicist at Oulu University in Finland, presumably partly Russian and partly Finnish.

Bruce Doran

29m ago

I don't think that between the two of us we will be able to agree on which education is relevant and which brainwashing.

But just as you can use a television without believing in transistors, you can avail yourself of genetically engineered medicines even though you don't believe in evolution.

It’s just that your beliefs prevent you from being able to design those medications.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“But just as you can use a television without believing in transistors, you can avail yourself of genetically engineered medicines even though you don't believe in evolution.”

I might not want genetically engineered medicines, and I might believe in the relevant parts of genetics.

Evolution is another fish, like pretending to know cats and dogs had common ancestors with each other, and further back this one and that of birds with some fish.

Bruce Doran

12h ago

The data reconstructing evolutionary trees is easily obtained and statistically irrefutable.

You should read about it. It's pretty clear cut.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The data reconstructing evolutionary trees pins down common ancestor to cats and dogs to what species?

Miacis cognitus is one of the options, and cognitus is an overstatement. It is known from only part of a cranium.

As to irrefutable, the similarities are certainly so, but their putting it down to common ancestry is not.

V

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

Skeptic

Answered 1h ago

I should think actual insanity is very rare, even among creationists.

Typically, the real issue is that they have a strong ideological and emotional attachment to a certain religious tradition, and perceive evolutionary biology as an affront and an enabler of atheism.

To many, rejection of evolution is simply an identity marker in the subculture they belong to. They haven’t looked at the evidence for or against evolution. (In all fairness, there are probably also those who accept evolution as an identity marker if they want to cultivate a self-image as rational and science-minded people — again without looking much at the evidence for or against.)

Human beings are complex. Whether we subscribe to, or reject, a certain idea will often be influenced by other concerns than a sober evaluation of evidence — especially when “ideological” and “identity” issues are creeping into the picture.

Indeed, when a certain idea is all but universally accepted and generally held to be very well-proven, this very fact will apparently spawn a subculture who cherish their own contrariness; they pride themselves that they are not “sheeple” who go blindly along with the majority, but have seen through the lies!

Moon-landing deniers and creationists are in this respect products of the same psychological mechanisms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21m ago

“Moon-landing deniers and creationists are in this respect products of the same psychological mechanisms.”

There is an inverse one, involving not going blindly with a psychological mechanism. It is common in majorities where a strong sense of psychology is inculcated.

VI

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Reed

DS Martin

Once was a believer. Not now.

Answered 1h ago

A2A

Some may be, but most are surely not.

They are, however, deceived and misinformed. They also clearly don’t understand how to separate mythology from reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

Why should mythology be separated from reality in the first place?

What is your definition of mythology anyway?

DS Martin

56m ago

I use the definition I find in the dictionary. You can look that up as easily as I can; so I won’t present it to you here.

We separate myth from reality because we recognize that myths are not explanations based on observation and evidence. They represent human imaginative speculation.

Creationism is mythology because it’s not based on observation and evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

37m ago

"I use the definition I find in the dictionary."

Some dictionary entries include fairly bad definitions through recent misuse of a word.

"You can look that up as easily as I can; so I won’t present it to you here."

I am not sure which one you mean.

1) A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

No need to separate this from reality. Some of them may be real, others not (unless you have an atheistic prejudice against the supernatural).

2) As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.

This usage would of course contribute to give a less real ring to some myths by conflating them as "same genre" with unreal ones.

3) A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

This would clearly be sth to separate from reality, as it is by definition untrue. I would consider Evolutionism a "myth" in this sense, but this is a sense in which I refuse to use the word, due to deference to previous senses.

4) A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).

5) A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.

These two senses are clearly irrelevant to the usage you made.

Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124670?isAdvanced=false&result=1&rskey=ARnYHe#eid

"We separate myth from reality because we recognize that myths are not explanations based on observation and evidence."

No one definition of above gives any hint of this.

Even a misconception (sense 3) can be based on observation and evidence, and it can be an explanation which is a wrong explanation, but still an explanation.

Phlogiston theory was a misconception, it was an explanation which is arguably wrong, but it was based on observation and evidence, mingled with some mistakes in so basing it.

"They represent human imaginative speculation."

That all true and good scientific theories represent too.

"Creationism is mythology because it’s not based on observation and evidence."

If you mean the Bible account, from chapter 2 of Genesis to chapter 11 of Genesis, it is as any other human history based on human observation.

Believing it as accurate is based on evidence in text suggesting that the account had been kept unusually well preserved. Plus, for Christians, the theoloogical evidence of the true religion saying it is totally well preserved.

If you mean the modern science related writings of Creationists, i e Creation Science, like any other scientific theory it has its bases in observation and evidence.

So, I think I deconstructed about every ounce of your initial statement. If you disagree, please do defend what is left!

I mean, the phrase I contested. I obviously have no beef with first statement.