|Posted by bonesiii on June 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM|
Often skeptics will present the possibility (sometimes assuring us it's certain) that biblical creationists may be wrong due to being insane; being literally unable to understand why (they think) evolutionism is true and/or the Bible is wrong.
This approach has always intrigued me, because as I often point out, it's usually claimed that the insane do not realize they're insane. As John Locke of LOST said in the episode White Rabbit (to Jack, who thought he must be going insane because he had seen his dead father walking around alive):
“No, crazy people don't know they're going crazy, they think they're getting saner.”
It's true that I think I'm sane.
Does that very fact mean that I'm actually insane?
Well, to be fair, I actually suspect I'm NOT entirely sane. In fact, I suspect I'm so insane, I can't even tell that I'm insane. And since I suspect this, I'm not insane. I guess.
Jokes aside, there are two key answers to this argument:
1) The wonderful thing about sound logic is that it gives us a testable methodology to finding real truth – at least truth that is definitely true in practical reality as universally observed by us. The fact that biblical Christianity enjoys clear, sound support (resting on demonstrably true premises such as the observation of universal causality and using only valid, reliable reasoning formats to extrapolate them to other true conclusions such as that the Bible really is God's Word) gives us a sure guide to knowing that the Bible is true.
This is testable because the whole principles of logic have in fact been derived largely from real-world experimentation. For example, we learn that an idea that is unpopular can be true (avoiding the fallacy of Ad Populum) by observing examples such as many people believing a myth that can be tested scientifically and proven false, as seen in numerous episodes of Mythbusters. We can then apply this to see that evolutionism may be wrong even though it is very popular at the moment..
Going beyond merely opening the door for the Bible's truth, we can also use sound logic to determine that the sorts of prophecies given in the books of the Bible and later fulfilled (especially the Messianic prophecies) were not possible to be faked, except by an extremely unlikely series of coincidences.
So an informed atheist is forced to believe that the same universe in which incredible unlikely life evolved by unknown means is also the same universe that just happened to have these prophecies and also have them exactly fulfilled right on schedule. Since under the multiverse theory, there's no reason for the second coincidence to be causally related to the first coincidence, it would also be an additional coincidence that they both happened in the same universe. No rational person would find this a satisfying conclusion. Therefore sound logic justifies making a leap of faith here to belief that the Bible is true, and the God that is beyond time gave us the prophecies.
And going beyond mere leaps of faith, the causality proof can show us absolutely that this beyond-time God MUST exist, and would definitely prove his beyond-time nature with prophecies. Since this only works for the Bible, we then know soundly that the Bible is true. From there we can then study hermeneutics to learn what the Bible says and translate it into our own languages, and read those translations with appropriate cautions, etc. This results in biblical Christianity as we know it today. (Note that I have found that most skeptics do NOT actually know it well at all, including those that use this argument; probably this is the main problem, so what they need to do is spend much more time researching.)
Note also that the multiverse theory if taken to its logical conclusion is really another approach to the causality proof, showing that ultimately infinite existence must exist, which is synonymous with God – so attempts to refute the sound support of the Bible are themselves inherently self-refuting.
This applies to all attempts to argue against the Bible's sound support, since to doubt any part of sound logic casts the whole process into doubt which would eliminate the ability for the skeptic to use logic to argue against the Bible in the first place. Since the atheists accept logic when it is emotionally convenient (such as in deciding what jobs to apply for or what car to buy), they contradict themselves when they ignore logic on the questions of origins and salvation. This also applies to fallacious attempts to dispute biblical Christianity versus unbiblical Christianity.
2) The insanity argument itself is also self-refuting.
Notice that the skeptics also believe themselves to be sane, and by the same principle it's hypothetically imagineable that the skeptics might be insane as well (maybe some actually are, of course, but likely the majority are sane but making bad choices is part of the life of “sane” people at least in this fallen world; of course, I do believe that all people are partially insane compared to an unfallen state).
Therefore, by their own argument, we couldn't be any more confident of their conclusions than ours.
This means that trying to argue for your own conclusions by accusing the mutually exclusive alternative of being an insane thought is fallacious. It is of no help in determining which of the two options is true (assuming for sake of simplicity here that it is applied to genuinely exclusive options; if there are other reasonable alternatives the fallacy of false dichotomy comes into play as well).
Ultimately this proves to be yet another of the countless attempted distractions from the real issue – which view enjoys sound support, and what is it?
Every time I have questioned those using this argument and challenged them instead to show soundly why their conclusion is true (thus why there would be any reason to even suspect that we might disbelieve it due to insanity versus mere ignorance), they have refused to give any genuinely sound explanations (usually they ignore the question, but sometimes give the old tired Evolution Dogma 101 talking points or grasp at whatever unsound straws come to mind in the moment).
If it could be shown that evolutionary origins belief has sound support, then we might have reason to take this seriously, because it would then appear that two mutually exclusive alternatives were both soundly supported (in the same sense, same place, same time, etc.) and therefore we would seem to believe in a contradiction. Then we could legitimately wonder if we were insane, but even then, more likely we would simply be in error about the soundness of one of the two possibilities (and when some have confused unsound arguments for sound it is usually the evolutionists who are shown to have done so). Often this happens due to false premises that sound obviously true without careful investigation, plugged into valid reasoning.
Note that I don't know whether the conventional claim that the insane don't usually realize they're insane is statistically accurate (it could be a myth, or possibly many do realize it but don't or can't express it), but this is technically irrelevant to the argument because the main idea is that someone is accused of insanity, regardless of whether they believe that's true or not. An evolutionist could just as easily argue that we're both insane and lying about the not knowing it (and we could say the same of them; not that we should but it shows the argument to be unreliable).
The argument that creationists are insane (and therefore creationism is false) is fallacious and self-refuting, likely used as a distraction from the lack of sound support for evolution, and is demonstrably false because biblical Christianity (including creation) has sound support, as has been given often by apologists such as those at answersingenesis.org and creation.com.