Steve the Geocentrist
So, I wrote a thing. I've been meaning to write a short piece about what it's like, as a scientist and skeptic, to try to reason with creationists. I also wanted to illustrate the shifting boundaries of reasonable vs. unreasonable beliefs. The more we learn about the world, the smaller the domain of superstition becomes. What we take for granted today - the sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace - mystified and bewildered our ancestors for countless millennia. That the Earth is a sphere, hurtling through space around a star that is, itself, hurtling through space around a galaxy that is, itself hurtling through space... but I digress.
My hope is that creationists, when reading this piece, might find their perceptions shifted, just slightly. They might find themselves sympathizing with Steve's friends, and applying just the tiniest bit of doubt to their own dearly-held beliefs. I won't hold my breath.
This was a fun piece to write, regardless. It's nice to be writing again.
Steve the Geocentrist
So let’s say you have a friend. We’ll call him Steve. Steve has been your friend since childhood. You went to the same high school and remained pen pals throughout college and as young adults making your way out into the world. Steve is easygoing, kind, and sincere. He genuinely wants to help everyone he can and goes out of his way to donate his time and money to aid the less fortunate. Though you don’t hear from him often, you have always felt warmly towards him and wished him the best in all his life’s endeavors.
Steve is also a deeply religious man. For the most part, this fact is incidental to how you relate to him. You’re happy that he has a set of beliefs that bring him joy and contentment. It’s obvious that the teachings of his faith inspire him daily to be a good and caring person. With all the animosity and distrust in the world, you wish more people could interpret their faith the way Steve does his. When you discuss religion with him, Steve is always willing to listen and share his stories in turn without judgment or moral scolding.
There is, however, one oddity to Steve’s faith. He takes the passages written in his holy books to be both historical fact and the infallible word of his creator. When an apparent conflict arises between Holy Scripture and scientific observation, Steve trusts his faith, because his holy book has divine origin and is therefore beyond reproach. And so, when Steve reads in his book that “the sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose”, and “the world also shall be made stable, that it be not moved”, and many others, it is clear to him that the Earth is the stable center of the solar system, around which the heavenly bodies must orbit.
Steve’s conviction regarding the geocentric model is a source of much consternation amongst his friends. Isn’t it obvious, they ask, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around? Isn’t there an abundance of evidence supporting the heliocentric model? Certainly, the paths the planets take through the sky only make sense when interpreted through a heliocentric viewpoint. And numerous observations made with orbiting telescopes and satellites confirm this theory. Imagining an enormous Sun orbiting a minuscule Earth makes no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the laws of gravity. It would make as much sense to say that, when swinging an empty bucket over your head, you are revolving around the bucket instead.
Steve, however, is adamant that geocentrism is the correct interpretation of the evidence. Concern slides into disagreement, and several of Steve’s friends intervene on his behalf, trying to convince him of the error of his ways. He rebuffs their entreaties and proceeds to recite a list of half-truths, bad-faith arguments, and outright ad hominem attacks. Where these arguments originate is never made clear; sometimes Steve appears to be copy-pasting large sections of text from an unnamed source, while other times he uses his own words to describe arguments made by other members of his faith. The only consistency in his arguments is their antiquity; they are all decades or centuries old.
To give one example, the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its orbit along the Sun are both targets of attack. How, Steve wonders, are people able to live on the Earth’s surface if it is rotating at a speed of greater than seven hundred miles per hour? And how does this incredible force not create a constant barrage of gales and storms?
Among the ad hominem arguments, Steve claims that to accept heliocentrism means one is no longer a true believer, and that heliocentrism is the cause of many of the modern world’s scourges. If, as Steve argues, people no longer believe we live in a world that is uniquely positioned in the center of the universe, what reason do they have to believe that their actions are of similar consequence and importance? Steve goes so far to claim that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong were all heliocentrists, and that this connection is no mere coincidence, but a foundational component of their despotic regimes.
Steve also makes a number of unflattering comments about Galileo, who he perceives to be a revered figure amongst the heliocentrists. He refers to heliocentrists as “Galileans” as a term of disparagement and often talks about the mistakes Galileo made, such as classifying Neptune as a dim star rather than a planet. These comments confuse his friends, as none of them refer to themselves as Galileans, much less as heliocentrists, and they readily acknowledge Galileo’s mistakes, noting that five centuries of scientific discovery have overturned many incorrect theories.
To bolster the credibility of the geocentrist position, Steve cites a number of prominent historical geocentrists, implying that because they are well-known and respected for their contributions to mankind’s knowledge, they can’t be wrong about a feature of the solar system’s structure not discovered until centuries after their deaths. Steve also lists contemporary thinkers who have rejected the heliocentric model - neglecting to mention that few, if any, are astronomers, and that amongst those who study the heavens for a living, the heliocentrists far outweigh the geocentrists by several orders of magnitude.
When presented with the tremendous body of knowledge supporting the heliocentric theory, Steve sometimes asserts that geocentrism and heliocentrism are merely two possible interpretations of the same data, and that if scientists made their analysis from a geocentric perspective, their conclusions would fall on his side of the debate. Other times, Steve denies that the evidence exists at all, claiming that heliocentrists are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the geocentric model, and are being paid by the government to churn out false data.
Steve’s friends are getting pretty exasperated. Despite all their carefully reasoned points, Steve refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is mistaken. Rather, it appears that the more he is confronted with the evidence the more fanatical he becomes. Finally, somebody asks Steve what evidence would convince him that heliocentrism is correct. Steve admits that no evidence would convince him, no matter how compelling the observation or airtight the argument. At which point half the people in the argument throw up their hands and walk out. The case is clearly hopeless.
It’s been a few months since the big dust-up. Several of Steve’s friends continue to try and persuade him, though without much hope. Everyone is mostly content to let the matter drop, only bringing it up when somebody posts an amusing anti-geocentric comment on Facebook, usually a response to some geocentrist politician with more hot air than sense in his head. Steve occasionally shows up to complain about the treatment. He claims that mocking geocentrism is a low form of discourse and only serves to make his opponents feel superior to him. Some of his friends reply that if he doesn’t want to be ridiculed, he shouldn’t maintain ridiculous beliefs. Others point out that nothing they say or do is going to change his mind, so any form of discourse is essentially impossible anyways.
One fellow, a relative of a friend of Steve’s, has been watching the drama unfold. He was an active participant earlier, but has given up with the earnest attempts at discourse and feels entitled to a little mockery instead. Reading through one of the more recent back-and-forth discussions, he chances upon an idea. He’s going to write out an analogous situation - one where the names are changed, the topic is changed, but the arguments are essentially the same. This fellow - let’s call him Dan - hopes that by presenting Steve with a parallel story he can shift Steve’s perception, just a bit, and see what it’s like to sit on the other side of the debate. To do this, Dan has to choose a topic that is also based on evidence, and reason, but has been so thoroughly demonstrated to be true for such a long time that even Steve will accept the premise and will, hopefully, be able to walk in Dan’s shoes for a short while.
So Dan writes a story about Phil the Flat-Earther…
My hope is that creationists, when reading this piece, might find their perceptions shifted, just slightly. They might find themselves sympathizing with Steve's friends, and applying just the tiniest bit of doubt to their own dearly-held beliefs. I won't hold my breath.
This was a fun piece to write, regardless. It's nice to be writing again.
Steve the Geocentrist
So let’s say you have a friend. We’ll call him Steve. Steve has been your friend since childhood. You went to the same high school and remained pen pals throughout college and as young adults making your way out into the world. Steve is easygoing, kind, and sincere. He genuinely wants to help everyone he can and goes out of his way to donate his time and money to aid the less fortunate. Though you don’t hear from him often, you have always felt warmly towards him and wished him the best in all his life’s endeavors.
Steve is also a deeply religious man. For the most part, this fact is incidental to how you relate to him. You’re happy that he has a set of beliefs that bring him joy and contentment. It’s obvious that the teachings of his faith inspire him daily to be a good and caring person. With all the animosity and distrust in the world, you wish more people could interpret their faith the way Steve does his. When you discuss religion with him, Steve is always willing to listen and share his stories in turn without judgment or moral scolding.
There is, however, one oddity to Steve’s faith. He takes the passages written in his holy books to be both historical fact and the infallible word of his creator. When an apparent conflict arises between Holy Scripture and scientific observation, Steve trusts his faith, because his holy book has divine origin and is therefore beyond reproach. And so, when Steve reads in his book that “the sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose”, and “the world also shall be made stable, that it be not moved”, and many others, it is clear to him that the Earth is the stable center of the solar system, around which the heavenly bodies must orbit.
Steve’s conviction regarding the geocentric model is a source of much consternation amongst his friends. Isn’t it obvious, they ask, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around? Isn’t there an abundance of evidence supporting the heliocentric model? Certainly, the paths the planets take through the sky only make sense when interpreted through a heliocentric viewpoint. And numerous observations made with orbiting telescopes and satellites confirm this theory. Imagining an enormous Sun orbiting a minuscule Earth makes no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the laws of gravity. It would make as much sense to say that, when swinging an empty bucket over your head, you are revolving around the bucket instead.
Steve, however, is adamant that geocentrism is the correct interpretation of the evidence. Concern slides into disagreement, and several of Steve’s friends intervene on his behalf, trying to convince him of the error of his ways. He rebuffs their entreaties and proceeds to recite a list of half-truths, bad-faith arguments, and outright ad hominem attacks. Where these arguments originate is never made clear; sometimes Steve appears to be copy-pasting large sections of text from an unnamed source, while other times he uses his own words to describe arguments made by other members of his faith. The only consistency in his arguments is their antiquity; they are all decades or centuries old.
To give one example, the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its orbit along the Sun are both targets of attack. How, Steve wonders, are people able to live on the Earth’s surface if it is rotating at a speed of greater than seven hundred miles per hour? And how does this incredible force not create a constant barrage of gales and storms?
Among the ad hominem arguments, Steve claims that to accept heliocentrism means one is no longer a true believer, and that heliocentrism is the cause of many of the modern world’s scourges. If, as Steve argues, people no longer believe we live in a world that is uniquely positioned in the center of the universe, what reason do they have to believe that their actions are of similar consequence and importance? Steve goes so far to claim that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong were all heliocentrists, and that this connection is no mere coincidence, but a foundational component of their despotic regimes.
Steve also makes a number of unflattering comments about Galileo, who he perceives to be a revered figure amongst the heliocentrists. He refers to heliocentrists as “Galileans” as a term of disparagement and often talks about the mistakes Galileo made, such as classifying Neptune as a dim star rather than a planet. These comments confuse his friends, as none of them refer to themselves as Galileans, much less as heliocentrists, and they readily acknowledge Galileo’s mistakes, noting that five centuries of scientific discovery have overturned many incorrect theories.
To bolster the credibility of the geocentrist position, Steve cites a number of prominent historical geocentrists, implying that because they are well-known and respected for their contributions to mankind’s knowledge, they can’t be wrong about a feature of the solar system’s structure not discovered until centuries after their deaths. Steve also lists contemporary thinkers who have rejected the heliocentric model - neglecting to mention that few, if any, are astronomers, and that amongst those who study the heavens for a living, the heliocentrists far outweigh the geocentrists by several orders of magnitude.
When presented with the tremendous body of knowledge supporting the heliocentric theory, Steve sometimes asserts that geocentrism and heliocentrism are merely two possible interpretations of the same data, and that if scientists made their analysis from a geocentric perspective, their conclusions would fall on his side of the debate. Other times, Steve denies that the evidence exists at all, claiming that heliocentrists are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the geocentric model, and are being paid by the government to churn out false data.
Steve’s friends are getting pretty exasperated. Despite all their carefully reasoned points, Steve refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is mistaken. Rather, it appears that the more he is confronted with the evidence the more fanatical he becomes. Finally, somebody asks Steve what evidence would convince him that heliocentrism is correct. Steve admits that no evidence would convince him, no matter how compelling the observation or airtight the argument. At which point half the people in the argument throw up their hands and walk out. The case is clearly hopeless.
It’s been a few months since the big dust-up. Several of Steve’s friends continue to try and persuade him, though without much hope. Everyone is mostly content to let the matter drop, only bringing it up when somebody posts an amusing anti-geocentric comment on Facebook, usually a response to some geocentrist politician with more hot air than sense in his head. Steve occasionally shows up to complain about the treatment. He claims that mocking geocentrism is a low form of discourse and only serves to make his opponents feel superior to him. Some of his friends reply that if he doesn’t want to be ridiculed, he shouldn’t maintain ridiculous beliefs. Others point out that nothing they say or do is going to change his mind, so any form of discourse is essentially impossible anyways.
One fellow, a relative of a friend of Steve’s, has been watching the drama unfold. He was an active participant earlier, but has given up with the earnest attempts at discourse and feels entitled to a little mockery instead. Reading through one of the more recent back-and-forth discussions, he chances upon an idea. He’s going to write out an analogous situation - one where the names are changed, the topic is changed, but the arguments are essentially the same. This fellow - let’s call him Dan - hopes that by presenting Steve with a parallel story he can shift Steve’s perception, just a bit, and see what it’s like to sit on the other side of the debate. To do this, Dan has to choose a topic that is also based on evidence, and reason, but has been so thoroughly demonstrated to be true for such a long time that even Steve will accept the premise and will, hopefully, be able to walk in Dan’s shoes for a short while.
So Dan writes a story about Phil the Flat-Earther…