Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid

Richard Dawkins is famous for the following statement:

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

At first blush, this seems like a pretty arrogant thing to say. Richard Dawkins has found the truth, and anyone who disagrees with him is either mentally or morally deficient. Then again, it also sounds like the utterance of a paranoiac, someone who is convinced that aliens are messing with his mind, and that the only reason others don't believe him is that the aliens got to them first.

But the more I've thought about this statement, the more I've begun to think that most people feel pretty much the same as Mr. Dawkins about the things they believe. If we believe something, likely it's because we've examined the evidence and have come to what we view as the only logical conclusion. Therefore, if people disagree with us, we tend to classify them in one of the following ways:

1. Stupid: They're not smart enough to realize the truth.
2. Ignorant: They could learn the truth, but they just haven't bothered or haven't had the opportunity. (We could also classify these people as lazy.)
3. Deluded: The truth is right in front of them, but due to some emotional or mental deficiency, they're unable to accept it.
4. Evil: They know the truth, but they ignore or suppress it because it will prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans.

Take belief in God, for example. I come from a Christian background, so I can speak quite authoritatively about how a Christian feels when he or she encounters someone who doesn't believe in God. They typically assume one of the following:

1. This person simply isn't smart enough to know the truth. Hopefully God will have grace on him/her.
2. This person could grasp the truth if only he or she would read this book/listen to this sermon/have this experience.
3. This person could grasp the truth, but evil forces have blinded them to it. We must save this person from these evil forces.
4. This person knows the truth, but they ignore or suppress it because it will prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans.

So I guess it's safe to assume that if Richard Dawkins is arrogant or paranoid, so are the rest of us. Perhaps that's another name for the human condition--"arrogant paranoism." This makes it a little easier to understand why debates over things like Intelligent Design get so heated and personal, because there's a lot more at stake here than science.

All of us make sense of the world in our own way, and we all believe we have found THE TRUTH. When forces rise up against us, it's only natural to assume that the people behind those forces are stupid, ignorant, deluded or evil. Because if they weren't, why else would they disagree with us?

Unfortunately, that doesn't bode well for us ever finding a speedy resolution to this or any other debate. But perhaps knowing that we're all in the same epistemological boat will give us something to hold onto when it really starts to rock.

Comments

[onein6billion]

"There's objective reality, and then there's our subjective experience and interpretation of that reality."

Science is an objective interpretation of reality and religion is a wishful thinking interpretation of reality. That's why a scientific "consensus" really matters and there can never be a religious "consensus". Science makes progress by coming up with better scientific theories and new evidence. Religion makes progress by converting the infidels.

[John]

Kevin wrote:
"Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with your statement,..."

False, Kevin. Why do you fabricate history? Prior to Copernicus, there was Aristarchus, Philolaus, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi, Ibn al-Shatir, Ibn Battuta, and Averroes.

After Copernicus, astronomers didn't just agree that Copernicus sounded right, they TESTED PREDICTIONS.

"... even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus--and you--to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around."

Kevin, this is simply a lie. You and I haven't studied the "same body of evidence" wrt evolution. Astronomers weren't "studying the same body of evidence." What convinces real scientists is NEW EVIDENCE. The entire ID movement produces reams of apologetics, but NO NEW EVIDENCE.

That's why they, and you, are frauds.

"Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you,..."

Repeating your lie doesn't make it true. Science is not about "studying a body of evidence." Science is about PRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE.

"... they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions."

No, Kevin, the NEW EVIDENCE led them to agree with Copernicus.

"So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is."

That's why real scientists make predictions and test them. That's why fake scientists quote-mine and cherry-pick and never test their own hypotheses.

"Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations?"

I do, because I test my hypotheses!

"Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better?"

Yes! So why is no one in the ID movement looking for new information? Why are they desperately spinning the information found by real scientists? Why are they writing dishonest books and making dishonest films?

"Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?"

It's about CHALLENGING our hypotheses, something the ID movement is afraid to do. That's why you lie and pretend that scientific dogma is changed by looking at the same body of evidence with a different worldview.

The reality is that views are changed and confirmed by new evidence.

[factician]

"I get the impression you think this refutes my point. But you've merely proven it instead. Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with your statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus--and you--to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you, they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions."

Hmmm... So what data do you have supporting ID? Bueller? Bueller?

[Norman Doering]

Kevin wrote:
"...even though they were studying the same body of evidence..."

No, actually they weren't studying the same body of evidence. Galileo introduced a new set of evidences with his telescope and that's what started the change. Copernicus's ideas were just a mathematical model with no evidence to back it up until Galileo came along.

[Cheezits]

" Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with your statement..."

What about now?

[Norman Doering]

Kevin wrote:
"Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with your statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus--and you--to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around."

Even Copernicus only offered his ideas as a different way to calculate orbits, not necessarily as truth -- and not many people believed it. Even after Galileo started looking up with his telescope, back when he got into trouble with the church, it wasn't believed by most common people -- just those few who looked at the evidence.

So, that's mathematical models of planetary motion and telescopic evidence and still people have a hard time believing it.

Now, what evidence do you have for ID?

[Kevin Miller]

Kristene said, "Try this on for size: It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in heliocentrism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

I get the impression you think this refutes my point. But you've merely proven it instead. Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with your statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus--and you--to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you, they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions.

So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is. Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?

[ellazimm]

Kevin: I would say that the correct interpretation of the fossil record is blatantly clear to millions of people. Spend some time looking at it. There are scientists who have spent as much or more time "reading" the fossil record as others have spent reading the Bible.

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to help you understand the science. You don't have to be "one of the select few", you just have to take the time. It's a very, very big tent really.

[factician]

I don't think you're evil, Kevin.

For my part, I think you're ignorant of all matters to do with science, and possibly dishonest (the jury's still out on that one).

But not evil.

[Norman Doering]

Kevin wrote:
"Take the fossil record, for example. We're all working with the same body of data."

Really?

What fossil data do you know about?

Do you know about Tiktaalik:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

The guys who found that fossil used the modern theory of evolution to know where to look. They looked for it in sedimentary rock formed during late Devonian.

When has ID "theory" ever lead to finding a fossil? What does it have to say about where to find new fossils?

[Kristine]

Wow, what a new idea for a post. I most certainly have never read this tired argument before.

Try this on for size:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in heliocentrism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

[Cheezits]

I think all this talk of "worldviews" is just a smokescreen. When someone is doing proper science, they don't have to preface their arguments with a lot of airy philosophizing. Present the evidence for your theory, and if it is compelling, you don't need to convince anyone to accept anything on faith.

On the subject of science, you *are* misinformed, though no more than the average person. There is no such thing as a scientific theory of ID. There is no reason for it to exist, other than as a camouflage for creationism. There is no reason for anyone to promote it, other than to give the even more uninformed the illusion that there is evidence for God.

If any such evidence ever does come up, that would be awesome. But nothing I've seen from ID promoters, least of all this latest effort, has amounted to anything more than a subjective feeling that everything "looks designed". You can't expect to base a theory on that.

[Kevin Miller]

You know, the more I think about it, the more you guys are proving me right in this thread. Everyone here has adopted a position, and if someone--such as me--disagrees with it, it's back to the old stupid/ignorant/insane/wicked routine.

I think what's also getting missed here is the point that I'm not saying reality is socially constructed. But our interpretation of that reality certainly is. Take the fossil record, for example. We're all working with the same body of data. There's no question that the fossils are out there, and that these are the calcified remains of creatures that were once alive. But over the years, people have interpreted this body of evidence in vastly different ways. Why is that? Because each person brings something different to the evidence. We all view it through a different worldview. After all, if the data truly were conclusive--if we were all able to view it objectively--the proper interpretation should be plainly evident to everyone, not just a select few. (which brings us back to the stupid/ignorant/insane/wicked thing, I know).

[Norman Doering]

Kevin wrote:
"At first blush, this seems like a pretty arrogant thing to say. Richard Dawkins has found the truth, and anyone who disagrees with him is either mentally or morally deficient."

But you are deficient, in both a moral and intellectual way, Kevin. You admitted it. You admitted that you didn't understand Dembski's math.

That means you really don't understand what you've been doing.

When I asked you if you knew anything about genetic algorithms and various maths dealing with complexity you just thanked me for the links without ever trying to explain what you did know.

That ignorance makes you the perfect victim for a fraud who wants to lie to you about science.

Do you really want to learn?

Yes, or no?

[Cheezits]

"So let me get this straight: Most of you think I'm deluded, but John thinks I'm evil?"

I'd be more inclined to describe you as misinformed.

[John]

So where did I say that I thought you were evil, Kevin?

[Kevin Miller]

I'm just trying to fit your comments into Dawkins's matrix, John.

[John]

Kevin, do you think that shrieking about your straw man will divert attention from the fact that you are afraid to look at the real body of evidence?

[John]

Kevin said,
"So let me get this straight: Most of you think I'm deluded, but John thinks I'm evil?"

Where did I say that I thought you were evil, Kevin?

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Kevin says:
"So let me get this straight: Most of you think I'm deluded, but John thinks I'm evil?"

I'm sure that outside this "debate" you're a decent chap, but unfortunately you have decided to throw your hat in with a bunch of truly unscrupulous frauds, knaves, and hucksters. You've mentioned David Berlinski before - possibly the most intellectually dishonest man I have ever encountered.

These people aren't interested in furthering our understanding of the natural world. They're not interested in preventing the spread of antibiotic resistance, curing cancer, or stopping HIV. No, they prey on vulnerable people and exploit their ignorance and fear in order to make a dishonest and wretched living.

At this stage, you are tainted only by association, but I would urge you to rethink the career direction you are currently pursuing - dragging Christianity into disrepute by insisting that it is incompatible with the cornerstone of modern biology is both self-destructive and futile.

[Rich]

Can I vote for 'theistically induced truth scotoma '?

[Kevin Miller]

So let me get this straight: Most of you think I'm deluded, but John thinks I'm evil?

[John]

Kevin wrote:
"That's why, when presented with the same body of evidence, people will arrive at such different conclusions. How we interpret the evidence depends on the worldview through which we view the evidence."

That's funny. You are being incredibly dishonest in this matter, because you haven't looked at the same body of evidence as scientists have.

In your mind an in your movie, you conflate hearsay with real evidence (something the Bible warns against) because you are afraid to look at the mountain of evidence supporting modern evolutionary theory (which is far more than just Darwin) and the ID "scientists" are afraid to produce any new evidence.

The bottom line is that you have no real faith, so you resort to violating the Ninth Commandment for purely political reasons.

So, back to the "same body of evidence," Kevin, how many protein sequences have you BLASTed against the database to determine whether they are consistent with common descent--based on both Darwinian and non-Darwinian mechanisms?

Your position is entirely dependent on ignoring virtually all of the evidence, and in your shriveled, little soul, you know it.

[ellazimm]

Kevin: I'm glad you think I'm a reasonable person; I wish my spouse agreed with you!

Seriously though, what everyone else is saying is: if you accept gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, relativity, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, etc then why question one theory that has more empirical support and hard evidence than some of the others listed? You're going to have to be very specific in your criticisms and back them up with something close to the hard data that established the theory in the first place even to be taken seriously.

You have the right to hypothesise whatever you like and I will discuss the issues with you out of respect but please make very, very sure you have considered ALL of the evidence before you attempt to influence other people. One of the most important things to do is to be crystal clear in our own prejudices and inclinations. The reason we value peer-review so much is that it helps prevent us getting too far up our own backsides. Science is not literature or music; we're not trying to see all perspectives, were trying to discover the way the universe works. When we find a model that has not been contradicted by 150 years of evidence we're pretty pleased and can get a bit defensive when someone implies it's not reality.

So far, all ID has been able to come up with is a couple of ill=founded negative arguments. When Drs Dembski and Behe find empirical evidence to support their view or even to falsify evolution then I shall give them all the time in the world. Until that happens, no matter how some people want to spin evolution, for good or for ill, I will prefer to see the world as it really is to the best of our current knowledge. I think you'll find that mainstream science is much, much better at shifting its paradigm because of new evidence than just about any other field of knowledge. As a friend of mine who teaches biology used to say: who needs science fiction?

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Kevin says:

"There's objective reality, and then there's our subjective experience and interpretation of that reality."

Yes, that's right, Kevin, when I see the comparative biochemistry, morphology, and embryology that shows a common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees I INTERPRET that as being evidence of common ancestry whereas you INTERPRET that as ___? I'll let you fill in the blanks with your postmodernist slant.

But perhaps this is too subtle for you. Perhaps we should discuss the postmodernist interpretation of Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system. Perhaps it all comes down to perspective, huh? Maybe we'd see things differently if we lived on the surface of the Sun?

I'm glad you brought this up, Kevin, because postmodernism in all its relativist, vague, pretentious, and ultimately meaningless twaddle really is a happy bedfellow for creationism.