Allan Harvey wrote:
> As an aside, I recently finished reading "Why People Believe Wierd
> Things" by skeptic Michael Shermer. Not a bad book, covering some of
> the silly and often harmful things believed by many today like UFO
> abductions, "recovered memories", "creation science" (including an
> interesting account of a debate with Duane Gish), and Holocaust
> denial. He draws interesting parallels between Holocaust deniers and
> antievolutionists, such as pumping up little discrepancies while
> ignoring the overall weight of evidence and a conspiratorial view of
> those who disagree. But the reason this comes to mind here is that,
> in a chapter primarily aimed at Frank Tipler's strange blending of
> physics and religion, Shermer says Polkinghorne's Faith of a
> Physicist attempts to show that science proves the Nicene
> Creed. That is such a mischaracterization that I think he must not
> have actually read the book, and it makes me less likely to trust
> the other things he says.
I did not read Shermer's book, so maybe I don't have the context
correct, however, even given that I see the parallels between the
*techniques* or *strategies* of creationists and holocaust
revisionists, I find lumping them together rather distasteful.
Although I flatly disagree with any 6 x 24 terrestrial hour scenario,
or a literal reading of Noah's arc, the motives of creationists and
neo-nazi crackpots cannot be compared. For all my disagreement, the
few creationists I know personally have in their hearts the desire to
do what they think is right, and they live by the Word (or at least
what they *think* is the Word). I cannot fault them in that way.
Neither do creationist share any particularly strong psychological
parallels with any people who become Nazis that I can discern.
Under such narrow minded generalizations, we could classify anyone we
dislike or disapprove of as a group of mentally diseased individuals.
What I find disturbing is that skeptics would resort to such
generalizations in the first place. The point of skepticism is to
require "evidence" before accepting something as "fact", but where
are the facts for these kind of generalizations.
Are there any publications in peer reviewed journals paralleling the
mind of the Nazi with the mind of the creationist. I suspect there
are none (none of any reputable merit at least). Hence, barring some
significant evidence to the contrary, I don't have to say (in print)
what I think of Shermer's knowledge claim.
in Grace we do proceed.
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 01:49:19 EST