Via Ken MacLeod, here is a good, solid argument for crazy. Or almost-crazy, at least. Dr Stephen Law points out something that makes perfect sense once I've heard it, that the reasoning patterns of creationists are very much like those of schizophrenics. Which is absolutely true. The endless cycle of rationalisations, steamrollering any attempt to disprove palpably silly conclusions with trifles like 'evidence' and 'logic'...The baroque, Rube Goldberg systems of thought...
The problem is that the only way children can be taught that creationism is true and supported by the available evidence is by instilling in them such twisted conceptions of logic and evidential support that they are likely to remain gullible idiots for the rest of their lives.
And what a good line!
Speaking of schizophrenics*, if you want to do a compare-and-contrast exercise of your own, you could look at the thinkers behind Cassiopaea.org, who are currently embroiled in a Conspiracy Theorist feud with my old chum, the proprietor of Montalk.net, whose account of said feud can be found here. Enjoy their completely potty theories, articles, arguments, and conclusions, marvel at the mental gymnastics involved, giggle when they take themselves seriously, note how closely it all resembles the reasoning used in 'creation science.'
If you wouldn't accept Montalk's reasoning and arguments, then you have no grounds for accepting creationism. It's the same type of argumentation.
Such a fine line, between theology and Conspiracy Theory.
~~~~
*: I am not a mental health professional. This should not be taken as a diagnosis. Or as grounds for a lawsuit. I'm sure the Cassiopaeans are charming people and not palpably deranged at all, not even a little. Really. Salt of the earth.
Bravo. Very well written! I often find it amusingly ironic that the very people who scoff at the fact that we share a common ancestor with apes, are usually remarkably ape-like themselves -- just look at George W Bush, for example.
Posted by: Bill on November 9, 2003 02:43 AMHi,
Regarding the fine line between theology and conspiracy theory and genuine spirituality (which in my opinion exists) and your remark on: "The endless cycle of rationalisations, steamrollering any attempt to disprove palpably silly conclusions with trifles like 'evidence' and 'logic'..."
According to transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber "trans" cannot be distinguished from "pre" by people in between as they are not at the trans "stage" yet. Something that makes the topic infinately more complex and interesting for me.
What do 'trans' and 'pre' mean in this context?
Posted by: aloysius on December 27, 2003 04:31 PMSorry for the late reply, in this context I mean a) that what looks like giberish and rationalisations has a deaper meaning for those willing to listen. For example a schizophrenic might talk gibberish but to someone who is experienced in spirituality there is a meaning behind the words - so communication is possible.
b) that in Wilber's model something transrational can look pre-rational from a rational point of view, as the rational mind is not at the transpersonal stage yet.
Nevertheless someone at the transpersonal stage usually wouldn't steamroll and call on "evidence" and "logic".
Posted by: darkcycle on February 2, 2004 07:56 AM