Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Nutty or Liars?

Entry 913, on 2008-12-19 at 21:48:09 (Rating 4, Religion)

I have been debating global warming again. I started off by sending a series of links to news items which support the reality of global warming and it grew from there. Oh but not until after I had been advised by the denier to "not believe everything you read". Oh sure, that's helpful. None of us believe everything we read, but ignoring the vast majority of news which proves global warming just because its not something you want to know about is hardly likely to lead to having a greater grasp on reality!

After that rather feeble effort at refuting my points I received a message from well known creationist, Jonathan Sarfati. Oh what a surprise! As well as believing in creationism and being an evolution denier he's also a global warming denier. I wonder what other brilliant world views he has hidden away in that warped mind.

The problem with people who deny the scientific consensus is that they must explain why they are in the extreme minority. Almost every biologist thinks evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth and the vast majority of climate experts think global warming is real. So how does the denier deal with the fact that they are in the extreme minority?

First, they can say that science is sometimes wrong and that we should keep an open mind. Sure, I agree with that. But if there is a theory which has support from as significant a majority as evolution does I think its reasonable to accept that as our working theory until something better comes along. The same applies to global warming, and although the consensus isn't quite as strong there its still very good.

On the other hand if we have an alternative theory, like creationism, which has practically no supporting evidence and is accepted by almost no one then its unreasonable to accept that as our interim truth. Its even more unreasonable to demand that theory should be taught in schools and that it should be taken seriously in formulating public policy.

So the next method of dealing with the problem is to claim the people who believe in the majority theory are biased in some way. This almost always leads to an incredibly complex conspiracy theory where the climate scientists or biologist are protecting their power and/or funding by continuing to act as if their theory is true when they know it really isn't.

Some deniers even deny that this is a conspiracy theory. It seems to me that if a huge number of people are secretly colluding to hide the facts from the majority then we have a conspiracy all right. Or maybe the fact that we are accusing them of believing in a conspiracy is itself a conspiracy?

Let me say once more that not all conspiracies are untrue, but its safe to assume they are in almost every case. If some real evidence is ever produced indicating a conspiracy exists, instead of some vague reference to people protecting their jobs or waiting to increase their power over the public, then I'll look at it more closely.

The final technique the deniers use to cope is just plain lying. I don't know if they know they are lying or not. I'm sure some of them know they are and others are just lying to themselves. Why would someone lie to support their position? Because they think the end justifies the means. They really believe that humans were created by god (yes, I know, sometimes I wonder what century this is) and even though they know the evidence shows this isn't true they think its more important to maintain the greater "religious truth" than the mere generic truth that scientists prefer.

So really there are only two options for these people: they are either liars or nutty. I don't want to imply these people are all evil or seriously psychologically unbalanced in some way - many of them are quite pleasant as individuals - but they do have to be suffering from delusion to some extent, or they have to know they are lying even if they think that is justified. So, to put it simply, they are either nutty or liars!

Comment 1 (1842) by Jim on 2009-01-03 at 17:33:50:

So OJB waffles on about creationism again. If creationism is as pathetic as you say why do you spend so much time on it? You should move on.

Comment 2 (1843) by OJB on 2009-01-05 at 20:49:33:

The problem is that it is silly and easy to refute, but only if all the facts are revealed. I know people who I have discussed this with who knew nothing about the evidence for evolution and were really surprised when I showed them a list of transitional fossils, for example. So its important to be on guard against even pathetic beliefs like creationism.

Comment 3 (1846) by Jim on 2009-01-06 at 12:55:58:

Then there are the people who say that debating what you call "silly theories" is just encouraging them. Would it not be better just to ignore them instead of taking them seriously and perhaps giving them extra credibility like you do now?

Comment 4 (1847) by OJB on 2009-01-06 at 20:42:46:

I am very aware of this issue and it is an interesting one. Many people do claim that ignoring the purveyors of pseudoscience and other nonsense is the best way to minimise their influence, but many also believe the opposite. I prefer to point out where they are wrong, otherwise how can we criticise them for not knowing the facts?

Comment 5 (1849) by SBFL on 2009-01-07 at 08:19:11:

Yes, Jim does have a point, and Iīm not yet convinced as to why you are so obssessed by such "silly theories" (the fossil example doesnīt explain it).

Comment 6 (1850) by OJB on 2009-01-07 at 18:53:21:

Well who knows how it got started. All I can say is that I now seem to get regular comments from creationists. There are two in particular who insist on sending me out what they consider to be compelling material. The same two people are global warming deniers so they send me propaganda from that area as well. Also, I listen to a lot of US podcasts where creationism is a much bigger problem. You might have noticed how many of my blog entries start with the comment that I have just been inspired by a podcast!

Comment 7 (1853) by SBFL on 2009-01-08 at 08:30:55:

Fair enough, itīs clearly a strong area of interest for you. Why donīt you tell your (assumably American) mates to also debate you on your blog so we can all see the fun (and so that we donīt think they are your "imaginary" friends, haha)

Comment 8 (1854) by OJB on 2009-01-08 at 09:45:07:

I have had debates of this sort in the past, although not at the level of the ones I have had recently with Jonathan Sarfati. I have asked these people to post to the blog but they seem to prefer email. I will ask if I can re-post their emails to the blog in future.

Comment 9 (1857) by SBFL on 2009-01-08 at 14:35:54:

Hmmm, interesting character. Iīm sure youīre having a good ol banter with him. He seems to have a bit of a profile so I can understand if he would want to have his debates on email rather than the public domain.

Comment 10 (1859) by OJB on 2009-01-08 at 20:05:30:

Oh yes, Jono is quite a character. He's actually a very intelligent person and can be quite difficult to debate against. I do think I've beaten him on most occasions though. Of course I have the advantage of having the facts on my side!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.