No, Creationists Aren’t Crazy. You’re Just Lazy (Among Other Things).

asylumbookLogansportStraightjacket0

So, creationists are crazy. That’s what Robert Rowland Smith says in Psychology Today, via Evolution News and Views. Creationism, according to Smith, is characterised by denial, psychosis and lack of irony. All symptoms of mental illness. To be fair, Smith’s article is more of a thought experiment than an actual diagnosis/accusation of mental illness.

Thought experiment or not, this isn’t the first time such an accusation has been levelled, of course. New atheists (don’t know whether Smith is one, for the record) have been telling us that theism is a delusion and that religion is an especially pernicious virus of the mind, impervious to reasonable cures. Accusations of brainwashing are species of this argumentative genus. Accusations of compartmentalisation and cognitive dissonance, too, if to a lesser degree.

What lies at the heart of such accusations is an incredulous and often indignant exacerbation towards foreign, weird and perhaps offensive ideas and the people who hold them. How on earth can anyone believe such patent bullshit?! How is it possible?!? Don’t they see how insanely wrong they are?! They must be crazy!

But here’s the thing. Calling people crazy very seldom says anything about them. What it does say something about is you. It says something about the time and effort you’ve put into understanding points of view different than your own. It says something about your imaginative abilities and to what extent you are able to step outside your own intellectual presuppositions and biases to entertain those of your opponents. It probably says something about how socially insulated you are. If you find yourself regarding strangers as crazy on a regular basis, you should get out more and with different people than usual. And ultimately, accusations of craziness say something about your ability to empathise with people, and to treat them with basic respect. Because calling someone crazy and thus refusing to grant them basic reasoning abilities and perceptual grasp means denying something essentially human to them. And it’s only a small step away from denying someone their moral agency too. Then the crazy person is not simply deluded but is dangerous. You don’t have to search very far in order to find accusations like that.

I am by no means a creationist. Regular readers will know that. I’ve argued against creationism on scientific, biblical and theological grounds for years, both online and, more significantly, off. But my disagreement with them, however strongly felt, does not tempt me to accuse them of being crazy. I disagree with them on some very central points, but they aren’t stupid. Or, they aren’t significantly more stupid than anyone else. Stupid is represented among all sides of every debate. It would be unfair and uncharitable to pick out the stupid on your opponent’s side, all the while ignoring the stupid on your own. In fact, that would be stupid. Same applies for crazy.

At the heart of creationism is a strong adherence to the fundamentalist understanding of the inerrancy of the Bible. For them, their understanding of the Bible is a matter of first principles. Creationists believe that the Bible is absolutely correct in every instance, whatever the topic at hand. Since the Bible has stuff to say about the nature of the physical world, it must be correct there too. Does this clash with science? Not according to them. Modern, secular science, yes. But not proper, true science. For many of us, a wooden literalistic interpretation of Genesis and other biblical passages does clash with proper, true science (which is modern, “secular” science). Which means, for us, that wooden literalistic interpretation must be left behind (to put it a bit too simply). Because for a Christian, all truth must be held in unity. There must be basic correspondence between God’s revealed word and his created word. But the thing is, creationists would agree with this. Science and theology must be brought and held together. That’s what creationism is, in their understanding. And while that’s almost certainly wrong, it’s not wrong for them. Because reason and understanding are socially embedded phenomena. Social pressures influence the plausibility of various epistemologies. And if you take biblical inerrancy to a matter of first principles, to be the basis of your epistemology, to be your foundational premise – what follows might seem crazy to those who are ignorant and too lazy to do anything about it, but in reality it’s actually not. It’s quite logical, in fact.

The reasons for choosing biblical inerrancy as foundational premise are interesting and I’m quite sympathetic towards many of them. But that’s material for another post.

What I wanted to say with this post was that creationism, as wrong as it almost certainly is, is not crazy. It’s logical, in so far as its conclusions are in sound correspondence with its premises. If biblical inerrancy is your premise, creationism follows. It might be weird, it might be strange, it might even be offensive. But calling it crazy says more about you than it does about creationism or the creationist.

Advertisements
Standard

16 thoughts on “No, Creationists Aren’t Crazy. You’re Just Lazy (Among Other Things).

  1. What if I have, in fact, researched the issue, met people, done research and attempted to sympathise with them but instead found that it is crazy to believe patent bullshit in the face of contrary evidence because it makes you happy (which, in turn, would be the only reason to try to sympathise with them).
    Sympathy only works if you believe in for emotional reasons. And that is bad way to reason against facts and evidence. In fact, if you reason like that, you are crazy. After all, you’re not real because that would make me happy.

    • Well, first of all, your definition of “crazy” is a bit thin. Choosing to disregard evidence in order to be or remain happy does not necessarily have to be crazy. It could be the healthiest and sanest thing to do in certain situation.

      Second, I think you’ll find that creationists quite simply don’t regard evidence for evolution as legitimate. So strictly speaking, they’re not rejecting evidence at all. In their own estimations they’re rejecting counterfeit evidence – which is the right thing to do, naturally.

      • Choosing truth based on what makes you happy is a patently unreliable way to get at truth.
        They don’t regard the evidence (that they bother to engage with) as convincing because accepting it would make them unhappy. Is this sane?

      • You’re certainly correct that it’s unreliable. But I don’t think it’s crazy.

        If you ask creationists themselves, I’m certain they will not agree with your characterisation. They don’t go around picking and choosing natural phenomena to explain in order to avoid unhappiness. They truly believe that they’re doing proper science. They are wrong, but not deliberately so and not in order to avoid unhappiness. On some level, we all choose our worldviews, more or less subconsciously, based on what makes us happy or what feels right. I get what you’re saying there (if that’s what you’re saying…). But if we’re talking about the way creationists understand themselves and what they’re doing, I think your characterisation is wrong.

      • That’s true. But that’s not what I was arguing. I was replying to your claim that creationists picked and chose among the scientific evidence based solely on what made them happy. I didn’t agree that that’s what they do, at least not in any straight forward way. And, again, even if they did, that wouldn’t prove that they are crazy. Merely – as you said – unreliable.

      • That’s above my pay grade, but I’d say that a diagnosis of insanity first and foremost denotes pathological behavioural patterns that are dangerous, to the insane person himself and to others. It’s more complicated than that, but I think definitions and diagnoses should (and do, as far as I’m aware) centre on that danger. Simply believing something that might be wrong is not crazy.

  2. Pingback: Is Being Right the Point of Christianity?

  3. Beau Quilter says:

    Not exactly sure why you prefer “offensive” to “crazy”. Even if creationism did hinge entirely on “inerrancy”, that premise alone would qualify as a bit delusional, but, as James McGrath often points out with clear examples on Exploring Our Matrix, creationists are inconsistent in their application of the notion of “inerrancy” to biblical literature.

    For myself, I wouldn’t mind creationists (or fundamentalist christians of any stripe) so much if they kept their teachings and practices to their own enclaves, like the Mennonites or the Amish (though I would feel sorry for their children).

    But when fundamentalist christians attempt to enforce for the rest of us …

    what to teach in our science classrooms,
    who we can marry,
    how women have access to birth control,
    what religion is taught in public schools,

    and other matters that hugely affect the rest of us, then “crazy” may be the least offensive insult I hurl in their direction.

    • As I said in the comments on McGrath’s blog, inerrantists application of their hermeneutical framework is certainly inconsistent. I agree with that. But if someone was perfectly consistent in their application of inerrancy, would they be a creationist? I think so. So my argument holds that creationism is an outworking of inerrantist logic.

      Well, at least you admit that “crazy” is an offensive insult as opposed to an objective description or diagnosis.

      • Beau Quilter says:

        That “hermeneutical framework” is ridiculously flawed to begin with. And, as you say, “inerrantists application of their hermeneutical framework is certainly inconsistent”. There are schizophrenics who hold more consistently to their flawed frameworks than creationists.

        As for what I admit to, I see you’ve fallen into the either/or fallacy. Just because a descriptor can be taken as an offensive insult does not mean that it cannot also be an objectively true description or diagnosis.

        Hmmm … that would also be true of calling someone “lazy”.

      • Of course it can be objectively true to call someone crazy, but I’ve argued for why I don’t think it is true to call creationists collectively crazy. And I have also argued for my charge of laziness, so it’s unfair to call it insulting (if that’s what you were insinuating).

  4. Pingback: Is Theism An Argument For Christianity? | findingdoubt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s