That’s a small digression actually. The main pondering point for this post is that I intend to start using “tribe” where I had used “community” in the past — in particular, for referring to those people that I consider a part of “the tribe”.

The decision was made from the gut. I have started grappling with rational arguments for making the change, enough to conclude it isn’t a bad choice, but not enough to motivate it with concise words. And I don’t think I’ll bother, other than in a discussion below should anyone feel like commenting on this. Instead, I will soon rerun an old post with the words swapped out and see how it feels.

Many seem to think Christianity is about community. It isn’t about community, it is about transformation.

Interesting. I can see that. A lot of the developments I’ve seen in Christianity lately seem to be related to getting back that transformational power, escaping from dogmatic ideology it has turned into in many contexts. Where does community fit into it then? Maybe something along the lines of transformation happens best within the context of community?

Thanks to all supporters!

While I was away, I received another message via Facebook from a complete stranger saying “keep on blogging!” I’d like to thank all my supporters for your support, it certainly helps to keep me motivated. I especially love these “out of the blue” messages, reminding me there are also lurkers that find some value in this blog. I love hearing from you, and I remain curious what you’re looking for, what you find most valuable or interesting.

Where is Chapter Three?

Don’t worry, it is on its way!

Even if it gets delayed for an unhappy amount of time. Even if I were to stop blogging some day… I’m not done with my current “blog arc” until I’ve taken a good shot at Chapter Three. However, I’m forced to delay it until I have a mechanism in place to deal with the inevitable derailing comments.

One of the most important elements of my vision for the future of this blog, for Chapter Three and beyond that is, is the open and friendly atmosphere I want to establish and maintain. To see our efforts dashed to pieces before our eyes as negative and destructive types loot the community’s openness.

Since time is few, and I’m no longer making promises, we’ll all have to exercise patience until those mechanisms have been implemented. Hopefully before Christmas anyway. :-/ In the meantime, we’ve more than enough interesting stuff to keep us busy! On to the first “meeting” of our book club next, yay!

the essence,
not that we find the right answer, but that we
wrestle with the tradition
fight with it
love it
are transformed by it…

Suggested alternative reading: God’s owners — talking about the same kind of thing, but with a very different style, from a very different perspective.

Usually I’m pretty good at ignoring the more violent comments, I’m thick-skinned enough. As are a number of my friends here. But with a target audience of people that have much softer “sensibilities”, often those that haven’t roughed it out on the internet or in e.g. academia, I find myself dragged into defending others too often. It could take as little as one reader becoming upset at a couple of rough comments to bring back my concern and remove my ability to ignore. One incident just over a month ago probably bears some blame for priming me to get embroiled in yet another epic battle. And I cannot afford to do battle like that, firstly because I have a full-time job now, but secondly because it doesn’t scale. And in my (conservative) dreams for the future, the interactions on this site need to scale up by at least… a factor of five to ten? (In my most optimistic – unrealistic – dreams, hundredfold!)

The longer-term solution I’m working on is “technological”, code to provide enough structure to the social interactions that they don’t always lead to a harsh battle between opposite extremes, between people that really don’t care about one another. But that will take some time, so in the meantime, I feel the need to jot down some guidelines.

Basic Commenting Principles

• At the moment, this website is first and foremost my website. I’m paying for hosting space with which to run this website. Currently, I’m the only one writing posts. Other people contribute comments. As commenter, you are just that: a contributor. I allow you to contribute to my posts, because I consider the contributions valuable in the context of my goals. That includes contributions which disagree with me. In my long term dreams: this site becomes the community’s website, where it is the community that is allowing people to contribute, because the community considers the contributions valuable in the context of the community’s goal.
• Every comment you write is communicating with other people. Other people. Bear in mind that every single person interacting with this blog, is a real human, with real emotions, real relationships in life, real struggles with all the things humans struggle with. You don’t walk up to a stranger in the street and suddenly attack him in debate, please don’t do that here. Try to get to know and understand people first. Naturally this site is a conversation already in progress, and newcomers joining in are, well, obviously joining in on that conversation. Do include them, but be friendly, and express your differences of opinion in a respectful manner, respectful of everything the person might be dealing with in real life.
• On the one hand, I refuse to bear responsibility for any comments below my posts: comments are contributed by readers, and really only represent the person making the comment. Judge not a community by a single commenter. This is the internet after all, freedom of speech, free flow of ideas, typically comes first. On the other hand, the first point above holds, and irrespective of whether I use it or not, I reserve the right to “unapprove” the most vitriolic comments from my website, which will shove them back in the moderation queue until the day I have a way to promote good comments above mean ones. That said, it currently remains more likely that I’ll add “editor’s notes” to the start or end of a comment instead of actually deleting it – I have enough curious readers that would like to read everything.

In short, I’d say the basic guiding principle is The Golden Rule, and that that ought to be enough, but people do need some reminding of the things they need to keep in mind. Appreciating other people’s context and needs, appreciating how best to help them personally, is certainly rather tough. How many years do psychologists typically study again?

Basic Goals of the Site

The aim of this site is not debate. The aim is not “reason and logic”. The aim is to relate. Actually, the title of this site refers to recovering from too much thinking at least as much as it refers to encouraging thinking. We certainly aim to encourage more thoughtfulness, to maybe spill over some of our excesses onto those in need, but the focus shouldn’t be on thought for thought’s sake: it should be thought for relationships’ sake.

I do believe relationships to be the only way things can scale, pay-it-forward style. Debate is between two people only, or maybe between a couple of people only: it turns the rest into spectators. Spectators do nothing but spectate (hyperbole). Sure, they may learn a thing or two, they might come out of it with some new insights, but they are not involved, their potential for making positive contributions is not fully utilised, they are not introduced to the power of their own voice, of their own creativity.

Debates remove power, destroy “energy”. Debates are too often about “knocking the other down”. We should aim to not create powerless people, rather aim to empower people. Why not harness “relational energy” and direct it towards good? (Blegh @ the “energy” word, but please understand what I’m referring to with it.)

Recommendations and Cooperation, defining “Trolls” in the context of this community

As mentioned above, I’d like the focus to be on developing some relationships. People that show no interest in being a valuable and cooperative member of the community, or no interest in understanding our interactions and raison d’être, are not contributors: I wouldn’t want to encourage them.

If at some point it becomes clear that certain topics of discussion go nowhere, with much frustration sowed all around, and many regulars in agreement: any person insisting on continuing the discussion could possibly be considered a troll. (Whether that is the case, is open to various interpretations.)

When you do come to the conclusion that someone is just trolling, always remember: Trolls should not be fed, they may become too comfortable around humans. If trolls learn they can get food from us, they will keep coming back, and become a danger to our embryonic community.

Can I encourage anyone with the inclination to do so, to cooperate in this effort? Please welcome newcomers, help them understand what this site is about, ask them to remain polite. Point them to this post. If they insist on remaining uncooperative, consider discouraging the existing community to not feed them, whether they’re technically trolling or not. In particular, also remind me, because I seem to be the worst transgressor. However, I do think I’ve burned my fingers enough times now that I will remember to not touch the stove in the future. Yay for mixing metaphors.

If anyone wants more speech-freedom than I provide on my site, go open a blog on WordPress.com. By linking to a post, a pingback should appear below my posts informing everyone of your post. I won’t delete pingbacks.

Some notes on my “trolling hypocrisy”

Yes, I certainly do troll with a number of my blog posts. I do hope to hook new eyes. But beyond that, I want things to turn into relationships, not debate. See the Goals above.

In the past, I had some intentional and pre-mediated “abuse-hurling” posts. In particular, I kinda attacked the one extreme. This is not because I’m against them, it was rather a deliberate act of trolling of some kind. I was trolling for vitriolic responses on the side of the “rationalists”, to gain some understanding of how future interactions might go. That was never meant to be the focus of this blog, but rather preparation for the future focus. I was trying to lay some foundations, learn to understand certain kinds of human interactions, in order to prepare for what likely lies ahead: I didn’t want to be side-tracked by unexpected chaos and derailments when the main drive of this blog starts running under full steam. If my “pre-mediated careful trolling” results in uncontrollable fights breaking out, there’s little hope for the Future Plans (TM), where things might be driven purely by emotion.

Was this foundation-laying “successful”? Well, it was primarily about learning, and I’ve learned a lot about what to expect: what can be done in certain interactions and what cannot be done. This knowledge and experience is invaluable. But beyond that, I’ve made a number of good friends, friends that come from that pole I was hurling some abuse at, but are nevertheless prepared to lend a helping hand, keen for friendly communication. I think we have all learned a lot.

Also do be aware that I’m also aware that many of the recommendations I put down in posts are directed at myself as well, not a case of directing them at other people to instruct everyone how to be more “like me”. This is very important, because if that weren’t the case, I would effectively be hypocritical around every second corner. Evidence of my flaws and transgressions of recommendations that appear in my own blog posts is littered all over this blog. It is in grappling with my own flaws that I come up with recommendations on a path forward, recommendations as much to myself as to others, which I then throw into a blog post and share with whoever feels like reading.

Sharing my ideals openly should also help keep me accountable. Call me on my flaws!

Coming Up

More suggestions on how to communicate in a friendly but open manner will be provided in an upcoming post. Depending on what you want to catch, you need different methods of trolling. Together, may we have many fruitful days of fishing! The goal: cross-cultural cooperation, open communication, mutual understanding, friendship, community.

Thoughts? Feedback? Questions? Recommendations? Agreements? Disagreements? After some discussion we could refine this post down to a more concise summary.

Homo Sapiens are a gregarious species. Theory has it that we have large brains in order to deal with the complications involved with social interaction. By our very nature, we have a need for deep connections, real relationships. (Note: this is my own abridged version of the service. I’m attempting to share the essence in my own words, mostly avoiding use of Christianspeak).

In an ironic twist, our contemporary communications technology seems to undermine truly deep relationships. Relationships and friendships are a lot of work, and requires compassion and understanding from us, beyond what a selfish mindset will allow. Instead, our need for true relational intimacy (we’re not talking physical here) is being soothed by an inadequate substitute. We collect quantity, instead of quality. We collect a few hundred Facebook friends, and then try to feel better about ourselves.

The service pointed out a number of “enemies of true community”. The first was pseudo-communities. Facebook runs great risk of being nothing more than a pseudo-community: shallow in the interactions, with no real depth. Of course, as a communications tool, it is up to the user to use it effectively or ineffectively. (In my opinion, zombies biting one another is shallow. Fun, but ultimately inadequate for satisfying a very real human need.) Reality TV is another one of these pseudo-communities: the audience gets to climb into the lives of someone on TV, and feels they are building a “relationship”, but obviously this is a one-way relationship with no real depth.

Another “enemy of true community” identified, was a “self-spirituality”. All too often certain forms of spirituality (or religion) is focused on the individual and his or her needs, without caring one iota about true community. People go to a service or sermon or church purely for what they can receive, that they may feel better about themselves or something along those lines. True “Christianity” is supposed to be all about community and relationships.

Here is an interesting link I saved from June 2006: Americans Have Fewer Friends Outside the Family, Duke Study Shows. I need to find out more about the research done in South Africa. I wonder how we compare…

We can discuss more of the Christian theology related to this matter in the comments, if needs be. I will also link to the service as soon as it becomes available. (I am intentionally avoiding the “sermon” word, pretty much as I am intentionally avoiding Christianspeak in this post, due to the audience I have in mind.) Last week’s theme was “Afgestompdheid” (something like numbness) by MC Engelbrecht, and next Sunday’s theme is “Eentonigheid” (monotony), presented by Theo Geyser.

The age restriction was 18V. Now there’s something significant about 18V: there is no L, there is no N… it is all V. We are so desensitised to violence these days, that to score an 18 on just V, it has to be really, really hectic. It has to be “The Passion of The Christ” hectic. The last time I felt this disturbed watching a movie must have been when I watched Event Horizon. And that was on a TV, not on the big screen.

Now here’s the thing: if you can look past all the violence and gore, if you can get past the “labels” hiding the true message, you can find truth. In “The Passion of The Christ”, truth is found in the eyes. Compassion. What can be accomplished by compassion borders on the supernatural.

30 Days of Night? Another story of a person moved by compassion for his community, for those he cares about, and willing to sacrifice everything in order to make a difference. In this case, the messianic figure is the Sheriff. A guy bearing the weight of his town on his shoulders. A guy that refuses to give up, refuses to get caught up in pondering to-and-fro understanding every irrelevant detail of the situation, but rather focuses on what needs to be done. He focuses on what the next step should be.

But enough about the individual, the other key truth found in the movie, is the community. The way you need to build good relationships, digging past all the façades that society forces on us, to see inner strength and support one another. We are a gregarious species, we are not whole on our own, we are whole when we live in community, with deep, significant relationships. Each of the core characters had his or her role to play, each made their own contribution in their own way.

We don’t all have to be the hero, for we are in this together. As a community, together, we can work wonders.

Right, some feedback? Did that sound too much like sentimental mush? I’m blowing off steam. I attended both Stellenbosch Gemeente and Shofar today. Combined, it was an incredibly moving experience. Emotional stuff… so much so that I would prefer to write about it tomorrow or the day after, when I’m more calm and collected.

On Friday night, I attended a brilliant set of talks given by the NG Church. This is the church that used to be married to the state during Apartheid era South Africa. My respect for this church is growing tremendously.

At this meeting, I met an old friend of my father’s. They were paratroopers together, in the army, during the conscription years. (Around 1970, I believe.) He told me that the best ideas come in three places: the bath, the bed, and the bus. (He suggested the bus example might have been Edison, who had forgotten what he thought of in bed the previous night, and remembered when he climbed on a bus. Fact checking needed… The bath legend was Archimedes, understanding water displacement, and shouting “Eureka!”)

I was lying awake, every now and then recording some ideas (that is now my preferred method of taking thoughts down, anytime, anywhere), and every now and then reading and sending email… yea… cellphones are evil. I do all this with my Nokia N70. I was pondering Johan Swarts’ encouragement for us to just start another organisation and be done with it.

Some time ago, I created the Facebook group Stellenbosch Humanists, with an invitation extended to all “humanists”. This group could possibly have become the organisation we are considering, however, “humanist” is still a label, and I don’t feel comfortable with it. (If you have not done so already, please read The Problem with Diversity, it is the defining post for the organisation.)

On Friday I created the I label myself as someone that rejects all labels group. (‘Nuff said.) This group just epitomises my feelings on the matter at the moment. The idea then, is to turn this into the organisation we want. I don’t know how good an idea it is, but for now, it will have to do.

We don’t want a virtual community only, this thing has to be real, so we have to meet. As such, I just created the Stellenbosch Branch, for people in the Stellenbosch area. (Feel free to create other branches as necessary. If you do, you can let me know in the comments below.) What is the membership requirements or membership policy? Everyone is welcome!. Yes… everyone. Anyone and everyone that feels they want to join in the conversation, can join. Anything goes. Anything can be discussed, anything can be said, anything can be joked about.

For those not on Facebook, thinktoomuch.net will serve as Mecca for the time being. (Until such time as something better comes along.)

Spread the Word! Spread the Good News! Shout it from the mountain tops!

I hope to see you there.

What would drive me mad, is an attempt to write in a way that everyone will find acceptable. That is damn-nigh impossible. The diversity of an Internet audience is simply too great. When I target my writing at black, white will think I’m the darkness itself, while if I target my writing at white, black will hate me for not respecting the tranquillity of the shade.

It is impossible to be everything to everyone all at once, so don’t even try.

This exact problem is also found in churches, as well as in attempts at understanding collections of books like The Bible. A congregation is typically very diverse. A message preached from a pulpit, falls on diverse ears, and is very very hard to target. It is really the responsibility of each member of a congregation to take the most out of a message they might receive. The most well-meaning and diligent pastor, with the most carefully worded sermon, in the process of helping out many people, is still very likely to lead others astray at the same time.

The modernistic way to reduce this diversity and thereby maintain sanity, is to develop a creed. If everyone submits to this creed, and direct their lives according to it, it becomes a lot less tricky to communicate well.

However, this also does not work perfectly. On the one hand, there is still diversity. On the other hand, forcing uniformity is one of the greatest evils known to man. It suppresses each individual’s identity and creativity, in favour of the supposed “common good”. What humanity is slowly realising, is that this sacrifice still does not appease the god of chaos and misunderstanding.

Allow me to quote Thomas Paine, revolutionary author during the Enlightenment, notorious for his book “The Age of Reason”, from which I am quoting:

Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

No matter what you think of the rest of his writing and philosophy, you must be able to recognise the truth in that quote, even if you do not take it as far. In my personal experience though, that last clause is much more true than I ever thought it could be.

But I digress. The point is, moulding people into identical little boxes, defined by some label typically attached to a creed of some sort, is unhealthy. Dare I say evil…?

Allow me to draw on an example from a Charismatic/Pentecostal-oriented religious organisation named Maranatha Campus Ministries, which existed from 1971 until 1990. Obviously, they teach from The Bible, drawing heavily on the teachings of a very famous man known by the name “Jesus”.

Now Jesus was an excellent teacher. He taught largely in parables, which have this knack for raising more questions than they give answers. He taught in the context of a culture from two thousand years ago, a culture obviously quite different from our current one. Each culture has its own unique challenges (and yet, in the bigger picture, exactly the same challenges, because we are all human).

Pre-modern culture was story driven. People told stories, over and over, and stories spread far and wide. It was an oral culture. We don’t see very much of that in modern, supposedly “civilised” culture. I think one of the remnants of this tradition, is campfire stories.

An essential ingredient in story telling, especially stories that carry meaning and truth, is metaphorical language, figurative language, imagery. “Beeldspraak” in Afrikaans, which translates literally to “Image Speech”. Jesus wielded this weapon like a sword. The pen may be mighty, but it merely emulates the tongue.

Now here is where things become sad or ironic: modern humanity, with all its supposed knowledge, seems to be losing sight of its wisdom. As “fact fundamentalists” (thanks Marcus Borg), we take this incredibly rich heritage of ours, and try to read everything in terms of absolutes. Black and white. We are destroying ourselves, digging our own hearts out with a spoon. Truth is not dependent upon facts…

In 1982, the University of Waterloo in Canada, expelled its Maranatha chapter. “Religious discrimination!” I hear people shout. Unfortunately, such expulsions do not happen before someone actually gets hurt. One member sexually maimed himself, quite likely citing the likes of the hyperbolic “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. Or better yet, If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. These verses do contain truth, they do contain wisdom, but they cannot be read literally.

I really do believe militant, fundamentalistic atheists have to bear some of the blame for reinforcing literal readings of this culturally rich piece of heritage. Maybe we do need to bring the Bible back into schools, together with the Quran, maybe some Buddhist writings, and any other very significant pieces of human history and cultural heritage. These could be invaluable tools for teaching children how to think and look at the world around them, and appreciate the diversity…

Which brings me back to the question, what then, to do with the great diversity that is humanity?

The other solution to the problem of diverse audiences, is to form tiny little groups. The smaller the group, the easier it is to have everyone think alike. You can pick and choose your inner circle. Birds of a feather, flocking together… I hope it is becoming clear that “knowing” someone by the friends they keep, is rather modernistic. The error in this suggested solution should be obvious to everyone.

Humans evolved into a highly gregarious species. We have big brains so that we can handle larger communities. We are exposed to culture from all corners of the world (did I just state the earth is flat?). As if that spatial diversity is not enough, we read diverse texts that were written over a span of thousands of years. We are developing a global village, with so many inhabitants that you can no longer count the billions on one hand, soon possibly two.

Our increased connectivity, in the sense of communication tools rather than true intimacy, makes it abundantly clear that it is of utmost importance that we learn to cope with incredible diversity. This may seem like a brave new world, with significant new problems never seen before. What is the solution? Simple:

Communication skills.

As old as the ages. As true as it is that we have problems that have never been seen before, there is still nothing new under the sun. It is quite a cliché that “we have two ears and one mouth, and should use them in that proportion”. The most important skill for good communication, is still the listening skill. The more diversity we run into, the more understanding and empathy we need.

Enter the post-modernistic realisation that those little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky, little boxes all the same, simply do not work.

I label myself as someone that rejects all labels – ’nuff said.

Some of my friends and I were concerned that the Freethinking Maties society would really just be a front for anti-religion sentiments, an “atheists anonymous” if you will. There were some angry atheist memes running rampant in previous meetings. This meeting was different. Possibly because two of the more vocal a(nti)theists were not present, but hopefully because the executive committee is discovering that there is a need for a Freethinking society that is not anti-theistic. Anti-theism is not how you de-stigmatise a post-theistic world-view.

A number of the new people were wonderfully vocal, and in my perception quite clearly anti-anti-theistic. I felt no need for me to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate, it felt as if there were people there walking with me, helping me carry the weight I had on my shoulder… even if they were unaware of it. This is all just my subjective experience. A friend that attended with me, also agreed he felt hope, where he previously felt none. (Previously he felt there was no hope of influencing the strong atheistic direction the organisation was taking.) There is hope.

It could possibly all come down to the fact that two of the more vocal atheists (or even anti-theists) were unable to attend. However, hopefully it is a case of the committee at last discovering that there is a need for a group of Freethinkers that are not necessarily anti-theistic. The majority of the non-theists, post-theists, agnostics and Freethinkers out there, are not interested in joining a society of angry militant atheists. If that is the direction the society takes, they want to remain uninvolved.

Either way, if you are interested in joining Freethinking Maties, take a look at the current constitution. Bear in mind constitutions can be amended. You can join the Freethinking Maties Facebook group. For information on formal membership, email freethinkingmaties@gmail.com.

If push comes to shove, and Freethinking Maties turns out to not be what you are looking for, there is also a Stellenbosch Humanists Facebook group. This group is explicitly meant for all humanists, including secular humanists, religious humanists, Christian humanists, whatever. Metaphysics is not important in this group. Please join if this appeals to you. See the quote in On Labelling Myself a Humanist for a good explanation of humanism.

An acquaintance brought to my attention another website that may be of interest to you: South African Skeptics.

Modern skepticism is the method of using scientific principles to evaluate claims or ideas. This is a positive action, to separate sense from nonsense. Skepticism is therefore not to be confused with cynicism.

If Freethinking Maties is not quite your cup of tea, you should hopefully be able to find what you are looking for, somewhere between a skeptic organisation and a humanist organisation. Or hey, who knows, maybe even Stellenbosch Gemeente. Keep an eye on this blog through December/January…

For my international readers, a little background on why this relevant to me: I’m studying at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Stellenbosch is situated about 50km from Cape Town. The town is host not only to a University, but also to a diversity of churches. Apparently there are more than 30 Christian congregations of various denominations. Many of these (I’m being optimistic here) are not in conflict with science, rational thought, and critical thinking, but a couple are, and pride themselves in it. In certain groups of friends, the greater majority rejects evolution and embraces young earth creationism (and most of the rest are not prepared to stand up for evolution). Some embrace the “fundamentalism” label as something positive. (Maybe in a similar way as I might embrace “geeky” or “nerdy”, using some specific definitions of those words, but rejecting others.) There was some controversy at the beginning of the year, when the student newspaper, Die Matie, published an article titled “Dosente bevraagteken Shofar”, roughly translated “Lecturers question Shofar”, one of the pentecostal churches that denounce evolution. (If there is interest, I can write a bit about it, though some translation of articles might be necessary, and my time remains limited.)

Enough background, which I’m sure made my supposed “bias” in the matter rather obvious (to those that consider it bias). Let’s state it directly. I accept the theory of evolution as our best explanation thus far, and this post is obviously written from that perspective. This isn’t the place for a debate, “debates” just waste time. If you want some arguments, take a look at TalkOrigins’ An Index to Creationist Claims, responding to creationist claims from the perspective of mainstream science, or look at Answers in Genesis, arguably the leading site on Creationism. (Somehow, it pains me to link there. But I’ll get over it.)

So, why do people reject evolution (including theistic evolution)? Thoughts on “deeper” reasons behind such rejection, can be found at old posts (2005) on 3quarksdaily, majikthise and pharyngula. I found these three links at darwiniana.

3quarksdaily:

My explanation is simply this: Human beings have a strong visceral reaction to disbelieve any theory which injects uncertainty or chance into their world view. They will cling to some other “explanation” of the facts which does not depend on chance until provided with absolutely incontrovertible proof to the contrary.

majikthise:

Mostly, evolution makes people uncomfortable because it explains how life could have emerged without any external purpose or design. Evolutionary explanations are threatening to people who assume that naturalistic explanations undercut meaning in life. If we assume that we were designed by some creator, it follows that our existence has at least some built-in purpose. At the very least, we could say that we were designed by someone for some reason. It wouldn’t necessarily follow that we were designed for any good reason, of course.

pharyngula:

Ultimately, what brings people together to reject evolution is a sense of identity and belonging to a group that has a non-rational anti-evolutionary dogma as a part of their social toolkit. It’s not assessment of the evidence that drives them away from science, it’s entirely because the evidence challenges a facet of the beliefs they recognize as distinguishing elements of their tribe. In a war between reality and their social group, they cling to their subculture. It actually makes sense, in an evolutionary and biological way: an isolated human being is not a particularly viable unit, and it’s the cohesion of the clan and tribe that is more important for long-term success.

Please go and read the original posts for more on these ideas, read on for my list of “shallow” reasons.

In the light of these possible “deep” answers, I’m rather shy about the more “shallow” reasons I want to list. I’d like to think I’m being more “practically minded” because it’s rather close to home. (Many friends typically reject evolution, and many members of my extended family are also very likely to.) Maybe I’m just being silly, of course, if symptomatic treatment is ineffective and the “deeper” reasons, the origins, are the true power behind the rejection. (Discussing symptoms might help make the root cause more accessible though?)

Reasons (“shallow” reasons) why people reject evolution:

1. uninformed (lack of knowledge with regards to evolution)
2. misinformed (believing another evolution-denier, who might fall under another category)
3. apathy towards, or rejection of science (favouring some other form of authority, possibly their church’s leadership, despite being informed)
4. a perceived threat to cherished beliefs/memes
5. a perceived controversy in the scientific community, making it “more arbitrary” which perspective (of two “equally valid” perspectives) is chosen.

These reasons do intersect in places, and it is usually a combination of reasons. Some examples that do not fall into this list, so that this list can be lengthened? Or might this list be shortened? I don’t think so?