Dan has really hit his stride these past few years, I've enjoyed all his content he's put out. This is another fine addition. I watched the whole thing, and it's a great piece that does an...
Dan has really hit his stride these past few years, I've enjoyed all his content he's put out. This is another fine addition. I watched the whole thing, and it's a great piece that does an excellent job laying out how insane Carl Baugh is even to other creationists.
Back when I was still an avid Christian, I encountered some videos by "Dr Dino" (Kent Hovind). I was excited that someone was doing actual scientific research to prove the things I already believed. Ah, what an idiot I was then.
Sadly, there's a still a ton of pseudo-science going on convincing people of the wrong stuff. It's a horrible practice. Flat Earth and UFO's to name a few.
Sadly, there's a still a ton of pseudo-science going on convincing people of the wrong stuff. It's a horrible practice.
I was already aware of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, but I'd yet to hear of Carl Braug before this video. With such a small community of "researchers" that hold their position it is a bit surprising...
I was already aware of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, but I'd yet to hear of Carl Braug before this video. With such a small community of "researchers" that hold their position it is a bit surprising they even have the capacity for infighting. I understand why they do anyway, the video lays it out, but just wasn't expecting it.
I am forced to wonder what goes through some of these people's heads. I wish I could peek inside and figure out who really believes it and who is just grifting the religious. I find it difficult to believe that Kent Hovind truly doesn't understand what is meant when an author pulls a book because he no longer believes his own claims, yet Kent continues to act like the book is some sort of evidence.
I think that a lot of the time things we dismiss as bad faith is actually blind faith. They have something they believe in so strongly that they have the need to reinforce that belief in others....
I think that a lot of the time things we dismiss as bad faith is actually blind faith. They have something they believe in so strongly that they have the need to reinforce that belief in others. That often gets transferred to other ideas. Dan mentioned, for example, people holding on to fundamentalism because it was the justification for cruel social structures like slavery and Jim Crow laws. If they admitted that the Bible wasn’t literally true it would mean that their image of themselves as good people would break down. So therefore they need the Bible to be literally true. Without it they literally lose themselves.
Fair. With this in mind I'd expand my earlier statement with still wishing it was possible to figure out where people actually sit, but with another group as to not unnecessarily label people as...
Fair. With this in mind I'd expand my earlier statement with still wishing it was possible to figure out where people actually sit, but with another group as to not unnecessarily label people as grifters. Maybe grouped like:
True blind - those that have no reason to disbelieve at all, or at the very least do not find the presented problems to be sufficient to invoke deeper thinking. An example of someone in this category would be a child that is isolated to just these kinds of leaning materials, often via homeschooling.
Willfully blind - those that understand that there are issues, but are so committed to the world view that they start from a position of already knowing the answer and disregard evidence that does not align. This may include people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham because I know, from debates and such, that they are definitely exposed to the issues but try to rationalize them away anyhow.
Grifters - those that know they are wrong, but push misinformation anyway because it is profitable to be on the short list of people selling that specific brand of misinformation. This also could include people like Hovind, Ham, and Braug although it is impossible to tell without deeper insight into their thought processes.
I suppose it's also possible that someone could lie on a spectrum between them with specific details. For example, it is possible that Braug knows that much of what he presents in his museum is fake but also that he truly believes in the position he is pushing so is sure the real evidence is out there even though he hasn't been able to find it. In that example his museum would be a grift, but in service of willful blindness.
Dan has really hit his stride these past few years, I've enjoyed all his content he's put out. This is another fine addition. I watched the whole thing, and it's a great piece that does an excellent job laying out how insane Carl Baugh is even to other creationists.
Back when I was still an avid Christian, I encountered some videos by "Dr Dino" (Kent Hovind). I was excited that someone was doing actual scientific research to prove the things I already believed. Ah, what an idiot I was then.
Sadly, there's a still a ton of pseudo-science going on convincing people of the wrong stuff. It's a horrible practice.
Flat Earth and UFO's to name a few.
I'm 30 minutes in and it's sooo good. And the animation at the beginning as an intro is phenomenal!
I was already aware of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, but I'd yet to hear of Carl Braug before this video. With such a small community of "researchers" that hold their position it is a bit surprising they even have the capacity for infighting. I understand why they do anyway, the video lays it out, but just wasn't expecting it.
I am forced to wonder what goes through some of these people's heads. I wish I could peek inside and figure out who really believes it and who is just grifting the religious. I find it difficult to believe that Kent Hovind truly doesn't understand what is meant when an author pulls a book because he no longer believes his own claims, yet Kent continues to act like the book is some sort of evidence.
I think that a lot of the time things we dismiss as bad faith is actually blind faith. They have something they believe in so strongly that they have the need to reinforce that belief in others. That often gets transferred to other ideas. Dan mentioned, for example, people holding on to fundamentalism because it was the justification for cruel social structures like slavery and Jim Crow laws. If they admitted that the Bible wasn’t literally true it would mean that their image of themselves as good people would break down. So therefore they need the Bible to be literally true. Without it they literally lose themselves.
If only we could indoctrinate people into believing this. The world would be a much better place.
Fair. With this in mind I'd expand my earlier statement with still wishing it was possible to figure out where people actually sit, but with another group as to not unnecessarily label people as grifters. Maybe grouped like:
I suppose it's also possible that someone could lie on a spectrum between them with specific details. For example, it is possible that Braug knows that much of what he presents in his museum is fake but also that he truly believes in the position he is pushing so is sure the real evidence is out there even though he hasn't been able to find it. In that example his museum would be a grift, but in service of willful blindness.