I have experience with debating creationists from over a decade ago as well as recent one with debating Stalinist apologists (who actually consider their belief system to be "science") and honestly, debating such people genuinely feels like trying to punch through a castle wall with a fist - all evidence to the contrary is either rejected outright or reinterpreted to fit the dogma. No change in the core dogmas is possible. One Muslim creationist actually told me she will accept evolution but only if I show her the fossil record of every single generation over millions of years which would require possession of millions or even dozens of millions of fossils.

The problem is that for such people their belief system is not just a set of opinions (like prefering bolognese over carbonara) but it seems to be a core part of identity, attacking their beliefs is equal to a personal attack on them and their tribe. But maybe it makes sense to take part in such discussions for the sake of onlookers?

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

19 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I have experience with debating creationists from over a decade ago as well as recent one with debating Stalinist apologists (who actually consider their belief system to be "science") and honestly, debating such people genuinely feels like trying to punch through a castle wall with a fist - all evidence to the contrary is either rejected outright or reinterpreted to fit the dogma. No change in the core dogmas is possible. One Muslim creationist actually told me she will accept evolution but only if I show her the fossil record of every single generation over millions of years which would require possession of millions or even dozens of millions of fossils.

The problem is that for such people their belief system is not just a set of opinions (like prefering bolognese over carbonara) but it seems to be a core part of identity, attacking their beliefs is equal to a personal attack on them and their tribe. But maybe it makes sense to take part in such discussions for the sake of onlookers?

This seems to be closely related to your recent thread about debating with Buddhists: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136632-how-would-you-counter-the-science-was-wrong-before-argument/

I too have experience of dealing with creationists, nearly always Christian fundies but one or two Muslims too. No Jews, funnily enough. I don't think you can hope to change their minds on the spot. The best you can hope for is to counter some of the specific pieces of misinformation they have been fed, one by one, and maybe thereby make them a bit more questioning of their sources. Creationists almost always have been taught it from an early age and rely on the wealth of creationist material that has been developed, largely to serve the US Bible Belt. These sources issue a stream of bogus factoids and arguments to support a Gish Gallop rhetorical approach: the faster you can splurge disinformation, the tougher it is to debunk it all. (Trump does the same thing in US politics, of course - impossible to keep up with all the lies.)

I think I would agree that the main justification for engaging creationists is to convince spectators who may be wavering that it is not the way to go. Often teenagers, for instance, will start to question what they have been told by their parents or their church and that's a good time to steer them in another direction. However one has to be gentle and not to rubbish their faith, as that is always counterproductive. With Christians, one can point out that creationism is only taught in a minority of fundamentalist Protestant denominations and it is not only possible but actually the norm for Christians to accept the science. I usually point out the existence of the well-established, non-literal interpretations of Genesis (which go back to Origen in 200AD, so nothing at all to do with science or their hate object, "Darwin"), to help them find a path that allows for accepting science without making them feel they have to abandon their faith.

I used to do this quite a lot on a few religious forums I once belonged to, i.e. where there was an audience that might be interested and could, I thought, benefit from it. Eventually though I simply got tired of making the same speech over and over again to different people, while many of the same diehards (the Jehovah's Witnesses were the worst) continued to spout their nonsense.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by exchemist

15 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This seems to be closely related to your recent thread about debating with Buddhists: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136632-how-would-you-counter-the-science-was-wrong-before-argument/

I too have experience of dealing with creationists, nearly always Christian fundies but one or two Muslims too. No Jews, funnily enough. I don't think you can hope to change their minds on the spot. The best you can hope for is to counter some of the specific pieces of misinformation they have been fed, one by one, and maybe thereby make them a bit more questioning of their sources. Creationists almost always have been taught it from an early age and rely on the wealth of creationist material that has been developed, largely to serve the US Bible Belt. These sources issue a stream of bogus factoids and arguments to support a Gish Gallop rhetorical approach: the faster you can splurge disinformation, the tougher it is to debunk it all. (Trump does the same thing in US politics, of course - impossible to keep up with all the lies.)

I think I would agree that the main justification for engaging creationists is to convince spectators who may be wavering that it is not the way to go. Often teenagers, for instance, will start to question what they have been told by their parents or their church and that's a good time to steer them in another direction. However one has to be gentle and not to rubbish their faith, as that is always counterproductive. With Christians, one can point out that creationism is only taught in a minority of fundamentalist Protestant denominations and it is not only possible but actually the norm for Christians to accept the science. I usually point out the existence of the well-established, non-literal interpretations of Genesis (which go back to Origen in 200AD, so nothing at all to do with science or their hate object, "Darwin"), to help them find a path that allows for accepting science without making them feel they have to abandon their faith.

I used to do this quite a lot on a few religious forums I once belonged to, i.e. where there was an audience that might be interested and could, I thought, benefit from it. Eventually though I simply got tired of making the same speech over and over again to different people, while many of the same diehards (the Jehovah's Witnesses were the worst) continued to spout their nonsense.

Here in Europe creationism is a fringe thing and the only churches that profess to it are imports from the US, not native European ones. The problem with ideological fanaticism of any kind (religious, political, even economic aka the Austrian school) isn't that it's wrong or unfalsifable (I myself possess ideological and cultural biases that don't yield easily to logic) but that it's actively harmful. In the US kids have died due to their parents using faith "healing" instead of taking their child to a doctor and let's not even start figuring out how many people died due to political ideologies.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

3 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Here in Europe creationism is a fringe thing and the only churches that profess to it are imports from the US, not native European ones. The problem with ideological fanaticism of any kind (religious, political, even economic aka the Austrian school) isn't that it's wrong or unfalsifable but that it's actively harmful. In the US kids have died due to their parents using faith "healing" instead of taking their child to a doctor and let's not even start figuring out how many people died due to political ideologies.

Yes I'm in Europe too (London). You are now broadening this out to encompass fanaticism of all kinds though. I think that's a different subject. Creationists don't have to be fanatics, just people brought up with a set of beliefs that sets them against science in certain specific respects. Often they will be at pains to tell you they accept science in general and its products (e.g. medicine, engineering etc). I even once came across an astronomer who was a YEC! He accepted all of astronomy apart from the origin of the Earth, specifically, as the home designed by God for mankind!

Weird what people can do to manage cognitive dissonance sometimes. Yet I think we all live with degrees of cognitive dissonance in our lives, of one sort or another. In fact I suspect it is probably what keeps us sane. If we insisted on joining all the dots, across every facet of our lives, into a seamless self-consistent whole, I think we would go mad. But that too is probably another discussion.

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes I'm in Europe too (London). You are now broadening this out to encompass fanaticism of all kinds though. I think that's a different subject. Creationists don't have to be fanatics, just people brought up with a set of beliefs that sets them against science in certain specific respects. Often they will be at pains to tell you they accept science in general and its products (e.g. medicine, engineering etc). I even once came across an astronomer who was a YEC! He accepted all of astronomy apart from the origin of the Earth, specifically, as the home designed by God for mankind!

Weird what people can do to manage cognitive dissonance sometimes. Yet I think we all live with degrees of cognitive dissonance in our lives, of one sort or another. In fact I suspect it is probably what keeps us sane. If we insisted on joining all the dots, across every facet of our lives, into a seamless self-consistent whole, I think we would go mad. But that too is probably another discussion.

For 99% of human history being factually accurate was far less important than being socially accepted, a tribal group full of freethinkers without ingroup-outgroup thinking would have fractured and died out. It all mighjt just be evolutionary legacy.

This thread is about ideological fanaticism as a whole, the specific beliefs might differ but general psychological mechanisms are identical.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes I'm in Europe too (London). You are now broadening this out to encompass fanaticism of all kinds though. I think that's a different subject. Creationists don't have to be fanatics, just people brought up with a set of beliefs that sets them against science in certain specific respects. Often they will be at pains to tell you they accept science in general and its products (e.g. medicine, engineering etc). I even once came across an astronomer who was a YEC! He accepted all of astronomy apart from the origin of the Earth, specifically, as the home designed by God for mankind!

Weird what people can do to manage cognitive dissonance sometimes. Yet I think we all live with degrees of cognitive dissonance in our lives, of one sort or another. In fact I suspect it is probably what keeps us sane. If we insisted on joining all the dots, across every facet of our lives, into a seamless self-consistent whole, I think we would go mad. But that too is probably another discussion.

Fair dinkum +1

I find the bit about joining the dots particularly poignant because that is the exact problem withs et theory that mathematics is still struggling with.

9 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

For 99% of human history being factually accurate was far less important than being socially accepted, a tribal group full of freethinkers without ingroup-outgroup thinking would have fractured and died out. It all mighjt just be evolutionary legacy.

This thread is about ideological fanaticism as a whole, the specific beliefs might differ but general psychological mechanisms are identical.

I didn't understand a word of that.

Are you claiming that the pope and catholics no longer believe in a creation ?

Edited October 9Oct 9 by studiot

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you claiming that the pope and catholics no longer believe in a creation ?

They do but in a different, less dogmatic way. The Catholic Church officially accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory (see the encyclical Humani Generis from 1950) and does not believe the world to be 6000 years old, the Genesis story is treated more like a metaphore than a literal account. The Genesis account was never taken fully literally by the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine of Hippo already warned against taking it too seriously.

Today the Catholic Church accepts all findings of science, including the Big Bang, it just posits that God is the First Cause.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

35 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Here in Europe creationism is a fringe thing and the only churches that profess to it are imports from the US, not native European ones. T

5 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

They do but in a different, less dogmatic way. The Catholic Church officially accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory (see the encyclical Humani Generis from 1950) and does not believe the world to be 6000 years old, the Genesis story is treated more like a metaphore than a literal account. The Genesis account was never taken fully literally by the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine of Hippo already warned against taking it too seriously.

Well there you are then.

Perhaps offer some more realisitic figures next time ?

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Well there you are then.

Huh? Catholics (whom I am not) don't need to reject any branches of science while YEC requires (at the very least) rejection of large parts of cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, paleonthology and genetics.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well there you are then.

Perhaps offer some more realisitic figures next time ?

?

I used creationism as a shortcut of young eartth creationism which is what's typically understood by that term. The Catholic Church doesnt believe in that.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

24 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Huh? Catholics (whom I am not) don't need to reject any branches of science while YEC requires (at the very least) rejection of large parts of cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, paleonthology and genetics.

?

I used creationism as a shortcut of young eartth creationism which is what's typically understood by that term. The Catholic Church doesnt believe in that.

Small wonder I've got no idea what you are talking about. I am not a mind reader of short cuts.

Please say what you actually mean.

This also applies to Science and I have been noticing a resurgance of religion (including creationism) in the younger generations in countries I am familiar with, which excludes Poland but does include many european countries.

I wonder if the current lack of clarity and propagaion of woo in Science has anything to do with this.

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

didn't understand a word of that.

That?

I meant that ideological fanaticism is more about group identity than factual accuracy and that such a way of thinking might have evolved in humans as a strategy to maintain group cohesion in hunter gatherer groups living in dangerous environment.

2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I have experience with debating creationists from over a decade ago as well as recent one with debating Stalinist apologists (who actually consider their belief system to be "science") and honestly, debating such people genuinely feels like trying to punch through a castle wall with a fist - all evidence to the contrary is either rejected outright or reinterpreted to fit the dogma. No change in the core dogmas is possible. One Muslim creationist actually told me she will accept evolution but only if I show her the fossil record of every single generation over millions of years which would require possession of millions or even dozens of millions of fossils.

The problem is that for such people their belief system is not just a set of opinions (like prefering bolognese over carbonara) but it seems to be a core part of identity, attacking their beliefs is equal to a personal attack on them and their tribe. But maybe it makes sense to take part in such discussions for the sake of onlookers?

You can't debate with someone who's certain they're correct, but it makes sense to talk to them and learn from them; otherwise you run the risk of being the ying to their yang, and so no one learns anything.

Life is never binary unless your in a pub quiz.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Life is never binary unless your in a pub quiz.

Or you're a Schrödinger's cat...

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Otto Kretschmer

2 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Or you're a Schrodinger's cat...

Only when you look, which is my point... 😉

Bump.

For me it was cathartic. By the time I had decided the Bible was not what I thought it was I immersed myself in all things music and all things science.

Just me, my beautiful girlfriend, my job, my drums and the universe.

Then it happened in 2007, I came across a Buddy Rich YouTube video, I posted the following.

"Buddy Rich is god."

I got a reply, "Buddy Rich is not god, god made Buddy Rich."

I suggested they piss off back to their Jesus website and left me and Buddy Rich alone.

Then it happened on a few science websites, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Dawkins.

On the plus side it helped me vent my anger at myself for worrying about heaven and hell for 23 years.

I increased my knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis and the Bible from a historical perspective and I am still learning.

I learned all of the creationist arguments and how to dismantle them.

I discovered the late great Christopher Hitchens debating these people.

26 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

I learned all of the creationist arguments and how to dismantle them.

But you haven't dismantled them.

You've just dug a different trench.

On 10/9/2025 at 4:42 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

The problem is that for such people their belief system is not just a set of opinions (like prefering bolognese over carbonara) but it seems to be a core part of identity, attacking their beliefs is equal to a personal attack on them and their tribe. But maybe it makes sense to take part in such discussions for the sake of onlookers?

True for hardcore bigots as well. The whole worldview is built on certain things being true, and they will fight with all their being against accepting objective facts that contradict it, because if they did their whole world comes tumbling down.

Facts and reason won’t sway them because that’s not how they got to where they are. It was indoctrination and emotion.

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

True for hardcore bigots as well. The whole worldview is built on certain things being true, and they will fight with all their being against accepting objective facts that contradict it, because if they did their whole world comes tumbling down.

Facts and reason won’t sway them because that’s not how they got to where they are. It was indoctrination and emotion.

Agreed, but that's what fascinates me about the flat earth society, there's no historical evidence that anyone believed that, before something like the 1970's; the birth of the troll???

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

True for hardcore bigots as well. The whole worldview is built on certain things being true, and they will fight with all their being against accepting objective facts that contradict it, because if they did their whole world comes tumbling down.

Facts and reason won’t sway them because that’s not how they got to where they are. It was indoctrination and emotion.

Such positions are also typically simpler and more emotionally satisfying

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Agreed, but that's what fascinates me about the flat earth society, there's no historical evidence that anyone believed that, before something like the 1970's; the birth of the troll???

Whan i learned about modern flat earthers, I thought for quite some time that it's satire. I couldn't grasp that someone can seriously believe that lol.

3 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Such positions are also typically simpler and more emotionally satisfying

Whan i learned about modern flat earthers, I thought for quite some time that it's satire. I couldn't grasp that someone can seriously believe that lol.

But a generation or two down the line and the troll becomes a believer...

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Agreed, but that's what fascinates me about the flat earth society, there's no historical evidence that anyone believed that, before something like the 1970's; the birth of the troll???

Ancient civilizations did. Lady Elizabeth Blount led an organization that did, ca 1900.

2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Whan i learned about modern flat earthers, I thought for quite some time that it's satire. I couldn't grasp that someone can seriously believe that lol.

Some of it might be simply contrarianism. People who have arrived at a position emotionally tend to dig in and double down when confronted with facts that challenge them.

See that a lot with conspiracy theories, too

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ancient civilizations did. Lady Elizabeth Blount led an organization that did, ca 1900.

Some of it might be simply contrarianism. People who have arrived at a position emotionally tend to dig in and double down when confronted with facts that challenge them.

See that a lot with conspiracy theories, too

Yes I was about to make that point. Some people love to oppose convention for its own sake and get a kick out of being in a select, special group where they can indulge in feeling persecuted. Contrarianism is definitely a social psychological phenomenon. They may or may not really believe the position they adopt: for some it may be they are just striking a pose.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes I was about to make that point. Some people love to oppose convention for its own sake and get a kick out of being in a select, special group where they can indulge in feeling persecuted. Contrarianism is definitely a social psychological phenomenon. They may or may not really believe the position they adopt: for some it may be they are just striking a pose.

And while some might not truly believe and are in it for the lulz or the grift, they can convince others, who do. (see e.g. televangelists)

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

And while some might not truly believe and are in it for the lulz or the grift, they can convince others, who do. (see e.g. televangelists)

I think that is a rather different aspect of human nature, though, isn't it? Televangelists are not setting out to be contrarian, I'd have thought. They probably have a complex set of motivations. They may (mostly?) be genuine in the beliefs they preach, but they also love performance, showmanship, the adulation of crowds and, in all too many cases, the money they can rake in. So they may start out more or less genuine and get corrupted by success, as so many do in so many walks of life.

But certainly I would agree a lot of conspiracies are peddled with a view to gaining adherents in order to serve some ulterior motive. We see a lot of that in populist politics.