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:
"Presenting a typical creationist background ("I was raised to be a
'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."

    I 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.
    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.

Date: 2007-03-19 09:58 (UTC)From: [identity profile] lost-angelwings.livejournal.com
Yus :\ That's an argument used a lot :( Where they claim to have believed something wholeheartedly in order to discredit it :\

Profile

aesmael

May 2022

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2026-03-19 20:11
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios