Were you ever a creationist, and if so how did you give it up?

[arthwollipot]

Are you certain?

Assemblies of God? Absolutely.

I'm asking because one would have thought my religious lot would have held creationist views given their very "fundamentalist" attitudes to a lot of "hardcore" Christian doctrines, but I know they didn't subscribe to the literalism that is required to come up with creationism. The nearest approach would have been a "how god created mankind is unimportant".

The Pentecostal Assemblies of God church was definitely into Biblical literalism. It was only years after I left that I started discussing evolution with creationists that I started to think "why did I not get this when I went to church?"

 

[Meadmaker]

Assemblies of God? Absolutely.

The Pentecostal Assemblies of God church was definitely into Biblical literalism. It was only years after I left that I started discussing evolution with creationists that I started to think "why did I not get this when I went to church?"

That last line is so important for anyone who is actually interested in convincing anyone that creationism is not correct. You have to think inside their box, It's not about rationality or inquiry or trying to figure out reality. They already think they know it. it's about finding the card to pull out that makes the whole house of cards crumble.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that works for creationism, too. It sounds like you were told that there were no transitional fossils, and thought some variation of, "Well how can they believe that stuff without even finding the links between the stages?" Then you discovered that there were, in fact, transitional fossils, and it was easy enough to dislodge the creationist beliefs.

Mmm, no. Not in my experience of discussing evolution with creationists, which is how I cut my skeptical teeth. Archaeopteryx isn't transitional between birds and dinosaurs, it's just a bird. Tiktaalik isn't transitional between fish and tetrapods, it's just a tetrapod. Ambulocetus isn't transitional between land mammals and whales, it's just a land mammal.

And then even when presented with Archaeopteryx's dinosaur-like teeth and tail, it's just a freakish bird and you still don't have a transitional between it and actual dinosaurs.

 

[8enotto]

My parents never actively tried to push religious over reality. Even my deep fundy dad didn't push much more than learning all we could in school.

I am not sure they really felt much at all about science or bible being stronger. Maybe it was just expected we believe because they did.

We as kids were on our own to decide on many truths as we could.

It is safe to say of the things each of the five of decided on religion didn't fare well.

 

[arthwollipot]

That last line is so important for anyone who is actually interested in convincing anyone that creationism is not correct. You have to think inside their box, It's not about rationality or inquiry or trying to figure out reality. They already think they know it. it's about finding the card to pull out that makes the whole house of cards crumble.

You misunderstand. I don't remember being taught creationism at the church. I learned about it long after I left. And given that particular church I think that's a bit odd.

 

[Meadmaker]

Mmm, no. Not in my experience of discussing evolution with creationists, which is how I cut my skeptical teeth. Archaeopteryx isn't transitional between birds and dinosaurs, it's just a bird. Tiktaalik isn't transitional between fish and tetrapods, it's just a tetrapod. Ambulocetus isn't transitional between land mammals and whales, it's just a land mammal.

And then even when presented with Archaeopteryx's dinosaur-like teeth and tail, it's just a freakish bird and you still don't have a transitional between it and actual dinosaurs.

Each person is different. There is no one set of facts that will work to convince someone to give up creationism. For Apathia, there was a case that someone had told her that there were no transitional fossils. When she discovered there were, the arguments weren't so deeply embedded that they couldn't be dislodged.

For someone you meet here, or in any comparable forum where you are likely to end up in a debate, they have already encountered it, and bought into whatever flimsy explanation that is used to counter that specific argument. If you want to be persuasive with someone who has already dug in their heels, you have to find the weak points in their arguments. I don't mean weak logically or weak scientifically. All of their arguments are weak in those ways. You have to find something that they haven't built up a shell around where you can slip something in.

It's a tall order. Being right isn't enough.

 

[eerok]

I was raised as a Baha'i, so I was taught that religion shouldn't contradict science. I've been skeptical for as long as I remember, though, and I don't think I'd have accepted science denial once I was old enough to understand the issue.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's a tall order. Being right isn't enough.

The one instance where I remember a creationist coming around to actually acknowledging the reality of evolution, it was after several of us had patiently and painstakingly presented evidence after evidence after evidence over the course of months.

This was at a now-defunct forum called CreationTalk.com and the poster went by the name JesusFreak0777 or something like that. One day they just stopped posting. About a month later they came back and acknowledged that we were right.

Sometimes being right isn't enough. But sometimes if you are right enough times, the weight of evidence can turn someone.

But what certainly never works is telling them that they are an idiot. Or that their beliefs are idiotic.

 

[Meadmaker]

never[/i] works is telling them that they are an idiot. Or that their beliefs are idiotic.

Indeed.

Apparently, you guys managed to find something, or maybe it was the combined weight.

Or it may have been something similar to what happened with Apathia, but it took a lot longer to chip through the walls. Creationists are taught that evolutionists have no answers to certain problems. Seeing you guys able to respond to everything he brought up may have shaken his faith, eventually to the breaking point.

That's speculation, obviously, but from your description it sounds like there was no one, single, point that he identified as being the one that created the crack that allowed the rest in.

 

[Venom]

From the moment I learned about evolution I accepted it. It was rather easy as a child who always read about dinosaurs and arthropods. How come they aren't around anymore and how did they diversify in the first place? I had a natural respect for science. Though at first I thought evolution was driven by Lamarckian mechanics.

I had to acknowledge the clash with Genesis with Eden and Noah's boat and all that, but I usually brushed off those inconvenient details or assumed the Noah saga happened long after the dinosaurs died out.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indeed.

Apparently, you guys managed to find something, or maybe it was the combined weight.

Or it may have been something similar to what happened with Apathia, but it took a lot longer to chip through the walls. Creationists are taught that evolutionists have no answers to certain problems. Seeing you guys able to respond to everything he brought up may have shaken his faith, eventually to the breaking point.

That's speculation, obviously, but from your description it sounds like there was no one, single, point that he identified as being the one that created the crack that allowed the rest in.

That's right. It was just point after point after point.

 

[gnome]

That last line is so important for anyone who is actually interested in convincing anyone that creationism is not correct. You have to think inside their box, It's not about rationality or inquiry or trying to figure out reality. They already think they know it. it's about finding the card to pull out that makes the whole house of cards crumble.

Depends on the kind of person. Some, if you pull out that card, they'll happily still pretend the house of cards is standing plain to see, and just refuse to discuss it further.

 

[Apathia]

Ok. Thanks. So, you weren't exactly a hard core believer, and when you found out that something you heard didn't add up, you transitioned fairly easily.

I always felt myself responsible for my beliefs. I was the decider.
So, I wasn't a True Believer. True Believers don't dare examine their beliefs or really take responsibility for them.

 

[Meadmaker]

I always felt myself responsible for my beliefs. I was the decider.
So, I wasn't a True Believer. True Believers don't dare examine their beliefs or really take responsibility for them.

Indeed.

They put faith first. Reason is to be viewed with suspicion.

 

[Thor 2]

Richard Dawkins said it was the realisation of evolutions truth, that turned him away from religions faith - if I remember it correctly.

I can't say that it was evolution, or any other scientific facts, that turned me. I just recall being convinced of the truth of Christianity, until I reached the age of 16. I was always uncomfortable with it, as I was uncomfortable with the whole religious scene. I mean the churches, the praying and hymns, and such. I was convinced I was headed for Hell because I couldn't embrace it, although I believed it. The writings of Bertrand Russell released me.

 

[HansMustermann]

Can't remember ever being a creationist, but then I believed pretty much all the other nonsense that mom was into, from ancient astronauts to spiritism to her being somehow in telepathic contact with me. And let me tell ya, THAT is one religion you really want, if you want kids to behave. God is more meh than mom knowing what I'm doing

So, anyway, wish I could say I was smarter than believing in the bible, but I don't think I really was any smarter on the whole.