Reading through the 56th Skeptic's Circle I had an epiphany near the beginning of Tara C. Smith|Aetiology's entry Skiff: long on rhetoric, short on light. When she wrote:
This sort of story is not going to have much effect on anyone who knows what's what except to annoy them but I believe it can be powerful for swaying the uninformed. If a person pretends they were once a whole-hearted supporter of something but later changed their mind after learning more about it, well, it sets them up as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, someone honest about their position, someone open-minded enough to give things a chance before rejecting them, an independent thinker. People love following independent thinkers.
"Presenting a typical creationist background ("I was raised to be aI had not realised until I saw them both mixed in together but the conversion stories that make up the standard presentation are very similar: "I was once a sinner" vs. "I was once a Darwinist [whatever that is]". I suppose that goes along with the equally standard and also silly claim that evolution is a religion, which apparently is a bad thing when that religion is not Christianity.
'Darwinist'"), Skiff began by documenting his early educational
history, where he claimed he was "trained to see religion as an
obstacle to knowledge" and then became a Christian after reading the
Bible in college."
This sort of story is not going to have much effect on anyone who knows what's what except to annoy them but I believe it can be powerful for swaying the uninformed. If a person pretends they were once a whole-hearted supporter of something but later changed their mind after learning more about it, well, it sets them up as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, someone honest about their position, someone open-minded enough to give things a chance before rejecting them, an independent thinker. People love following independent thinkers.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 09:58 (UTC)From: