A couple years ago, my town had a town fair. One guy was running a “Creationism Booth” where he had a bunch of displays explaining Biblical Creationism and the Story of Noah’s Arc, which he insisted was literally true. I went there and tried to act polite, all the while amazed that someone would go to such effort to defend Genesis as actual fact. I returned home with some of the brochures the man gave me (I took them as a matter of courtesy) and my father asked me about them. I explained about the creationism booth. My father insisted that he go down there and try to talk some sense into this man.
My father went up to that booth and got into an extended argument with the man running it, intensely questioning him as to the particulars of creationism and the Noah’s Ark story. Exasperated, the man eventually gave up and said he didn’t want to argue anymore. “You just don’t understand.”
Next year, there was no creationism booth at the town fair.
Is trying to counter ignorance a moral responsibility? Or is it wrong to attempt to shatter others belief systems that give them comfort?
I’m not enough of a fighter to attempt to counter such ignorance. I find no peace in arguing a lost cause (evolution, moon landing, etc). I’d rather repeatedly run into a brick wall until it collapsed. Also, my study into evolution and other theories is too light for me to put up a strong argument that won’t be hijacked.
Totally agree, everyone should look to educating themselves before attacking other’s beliefs. If the man wants to believe in creation, fine, let him along, after all that is his right, as long as he physically harms no one in the process.
There are so many millions of views in the world, no one knows for sure which is right. Evolution is still a theory, not proven, not fact. Neither is creation proven or fact. Trying to “convert” someone from a theory to a different theory is not wisdom.
There is an important distinction to be made between different kinds of fights against ignorance:
Figthing your own ignorange: a good thing.
Correcting somebody else’s ignorance: know when to quit.
Correcting when somebody else is spreading ignorance…
Well, I would say this comes pretty close to being a moral duty; in the extreme case, the misinformation could bring the listener to extreme harm (such as ignorance of traffic law). When discussing the orbit of pluto, though, correction beyond a polite, “Uh, no, it’s actually…” should only be pursued if they’re claiming that Pluto is about to plow into Earth and so they’re selling this planet collision insurance…
And, on this message board, aren’t we all pretty much obligated to fight ignorance? Even about stupid, irrelevant things? This is a special case though.
IMHO, the worst part about these message boards is it’s impossible to tell if you’ve got an audience or not! 'Cause when all of the open minds leave the debate, “enlightened” or otherwise, you are suddenly back in case 2… and don’t know that it’s time to quit!
Evolution is a theory in the same way the gravity is a theory. The “evolution is a theory” defense is based upon a misunderstanding of just what “theory” means in scientific terms.
Blalron, for the sanctity of this thread, please don’t start that here. Trust me, there are other threads around here where better people than I have attempted to help S.M. in his personal fight against ignorance. The last one I saw was a massive train wreck.
I think fighting ignorance is only a noble goal if you’re preventing some harm from being committed, and even then, there’re limits. If someone is studying for a test and is using incorrect information, then trying to set them right is a good idea, and a nice thing to do. The Creationist example, though, I think the proper thing to do is quietly laugh to yourself if you must, and then walk on. Whether Creationism is right or wrong, the fact is that belief in such isn’t going to hurt anyone. Heck, if I choose to believe that the universe is run by a giant purple space baboon, the worst that’s going to befall me is that I may be subject to the occasional giggle. I’m happy in my beliefs, so why rock the boat?
Now, if the man had been preaching Scientology, for example, I can see a desire to intervene. Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous one at that. By confronting this man’s ignorance, you may both help him, and prevent others from being sucked in. Even in such a case, though, you should know when to back off. People are always defensive about their beliefs, whether religious or political, and there comes a certain point where you may be arguing to a brick wall.
Sometimes fighting ignorance makes you helpful and noble. But sometimes it just makes you a prick. When your help is unsolicited, you always run a serious risk of being perceived as the latter.
Jeff
I’ll take a stab at mediating this hijack before it takes over the thread. Gravity and relativity and evolution are all “theories”, in the scientific sense, yes. That means that they’ve been tested or examined to the extent that scientists are pretty sure that they’re valid, and accept them as fact, at least until something better comes along. And a good scientist will always understand that something better may come along. Newton’s gravity was accepted for centuries before Einstein came along and fine-tuned it, giving us gravity as we understand it today.
The point is that regardless of how sure the scientific community is about something, there’s always the possibility of change and refinement. We could discover something tomorrow that shows that the sun is made of earwax, and people evolved from S’mores. However, today, there’s no reason to believe either of those things, so we assume that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, and people evolved from ape-thingies, because that’s what the evidence shows - and in both cases, there’s an awful lot of evidence that a new theory would have to account for.
So lekatt and Blalron, you’re both right. Evolution is a theory, and it hasn’t been proven, but at the same time, there’s little reason to believe that it’s not valid. Now let’s drop it, please?
Jeff
But if each person fights their own ignorance first, the chances of ignorance spreading is minimal. If the person is educated enough, then they won’t take bs seriously.
Ignorance can be easily conquered by a presentation of credible facts to present a clear and better understanding of the truth. If ignorance is self-imposed, it would mean that no amount of facts and data presented would be accepted, therefore arguing would do no good.
To redaicate ignorance is not only a moral responsibility but a noble one, but one must have the wisdom to know the difference between ignorance, which is just a lack of understanding, to stupidity, which is denial of the truth. People who will not listen to the truth are fools and one must never argue with a fool. People witnessing the arguement might not know who is the fool.
In many cases, ignorance is dangerous. I’d say Fundamentalism is dangerous because it gives false comfort and it shackles the mind. Why not try to counter it before it spreads?
I think fighting ignorance should not be done so much on the grass roots level as the more global and subtle levels. Encourage a scientific mindset and critical thinking. Be enthusiastic and supportive of public education and try as hard to dispel mindsets rather than beliefs.
Currently, I am in Uni so a large part of my personal fight against ignorance is to combat the ever growing trend of extreme post-modern relativism that has swept across the intelligensia. I find that this is more effective in the long run that stuff like debunking moon landing hoaxes.
There is no such thing a false comfort. Everything in this world has value, even if only to show what not to do. A very large number of people in this world get their hope, comfort, and strength from their belief in God. You can not prove they are wrong about their belief in God. So why are you interferring in their business.
Go fight your own ignorance, leave others alone. If you can prove someone has been harmed by their beliefs, then go to the authorities who are trained to handle the problem.
Please clarify what you mean by this. I know a little something about post-modernistic theories of sociology myself, and I’m wondering if you can provide some examples and illustrations of your previous point. Are you referring to the lack of value constancy, as is the result of the proliferation of relative ways of thinking?
re the OP:
Fighting ignorance is not univerally a moral duty, else we would all be compelled to crush the Christmas Eve dreams of countelss children. In many cases, though, it is an ethically sound act. Ignorance in teh wrong hands can be sownright dangerous.
