Why is it, for example, that creationists are so confused about the arguments for evolution?
Take a look at this little bit of dribble:
http://www.chick.com/bc/2011/nightmare.aspWhere did this idea come from? Not from any evolutionary scientist, or text, that’s for sure. Yet it is put forward as an idea that conflicts with the theory of evolution. But it isn’t a problem for evolution. This is the product of a lack of empathy.
Empathy does not just mean a sympathy cry when you read about something terrible happening to other people. The sympathy cry is a by-product of empathy, not the main course.
Empathy, put simply, is understanding where someone else is coming from. Putting yourself in their position and anticipating how they might view things and react.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmpathyWikipedia leans heavily on the sympathy cry aspect, but I use the term more broadly and especially pointing toward understanding role reversal.
This creationist cannot understand evolution because he will not accept the framework of the evolutionary explanation, even for as long as it takes to diagnose the problems. Instead, he simply superimposes some ideas that he’s heard expressed about evolution over the magical creation story which he holds as bedrock truth.
A reversed example of this would be for me to refuse to let go of the concept of evolution while considering the creationist claim of individual magical creation of all “kinds” of species. It involves an extreme lack of concern for logic, but I’ll give it a whack all the same.
An accurate representation of the magical creation account is that nothing exists without god’s intervention. He created the different species, all of them, as they are, in the current states, as adults, which then are enabled to propagate according to gods will bearing offspring of like kind. Every offspring of the donkey will remain a donkey with no deviation from that “kind”, forever.
A refusal to accept the premise of that account, but still incorporating elements of it, thus mis-representing the argument as he has done for evolution would be something along these lines:
“God created fish. Then they bred together and their offspring were different because god directly intervened during birth to re-shape that offspring into a different kind of animal, thus the birth of salamanders.”
You see, this is a refusal to let go of the idea of speciation brought about through reproductive cycles, and still using that as the underpinning of MY representation of my OPPONENT’s argument. So far as I know, no creationist uses this as an argument. If I tried using that in a debate against creationist talking points I would be deliberately mis-representing their side.
Admittedly, I do find their argument silly. But in order to really understand their argument it is necessary to suspend the system I am confident in (evolution) and pretend it doesn’t factor into reality when considering their system. The resolution is to see how that compares to reality, which is where creationism really takes a nose dive.
But this isn’t just a problem with (deliberately?) Mis-understanding scientific research, or education. It’s also the problem with not understanding why I think everyone should have health care.
It’s at the root of calling other people’s stuff, “shit” and calling your shit, “stuff”. It’s at the root of calling food stamps a hand out to lazy good-for-nothings when you don’t need them, and vital help that the world owes you when you DO need them. It’s how Megan Kelly thinks paternity leave is an unnecessary entitlement before she gets pregnant, then a vital service after she has a baby.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... ntoleranceIt’s at the root of not understanding that heathens and infidels are just on the other side of some belief schism and that neither is right. It’s at the root of robbery, murder, extortion, and misunderstanding. Psychopaths have the same problem you do, they just carry it further.
Empathy is the solution to much of this, and I am not talking about crying on your pillow. I’m talking about trying on somebody else’s point of view and seeing what it looks like through those glasses. The person you emulated for that thought experiment might still be wrong, but you come away with a better understanding of WHY they are wrong, and where they are right.
And in the end, how to improve yourself.
Tweet This Topic
