Synthese

, Volume 178, Issue 2, pp 207–218 | Cite as

Are creationists rational?

Article

Abstract

Creationism is usually regarded as an irrational set of beliefs. In this paper I propose that the best way to understand why individual learners settle on any mature set of beliefs is to see that as the developmental outcome of a series of “fast and frugal” boundedly rational inferences rather than as a rejection of reason. This applies to those whose views are opposed to science in general. A bounded rationality model of belief choices both serves to explain the fact that folk traditions tend to converge on “anti-modernity”, and to act as a default hypothesis, deviations from which we can use to identify other, arational, influences such as social psychological, economic and individual dispositions. I propose some educational and public policy strategies that might decrease the proportion of learners who find creationism and anti-science in general a rational choice.

Keywords

Bounded rationality Epistemic commitment Creationism Anti-modernism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Festinger L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Gärdenfors P. (2000) Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought, Vol. x (p. 307). MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Gigerenzer G. (2000) Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world, Vol. xi (p. 344). Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D.G. (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103: 650–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gigerenzer G., Selten R. (2001) Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox, Vol xv (p. 377). MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart, Vol. xv (p. 416). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson P.E. (1995) Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law & education (p. 245). InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILGoogle Scholar
  8. Libet B. (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and brain sciences 8: 529–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Libet B. (2002) Do we have free will?. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 47–57Google Scholar
  10. Lombrozo T., Shtulman A., Weisberg M. (2006) The intelligent design controversy: Lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 56–57Google Scholar
  11. Plantinga A. (1996) Science: Augustian or Duhemian? Faith and Philosophy 13: 368–394Google Scholar
  12. Quine W.V.O. (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Richerson P.J., Boyd R. (2005) Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution, Vol. ix (p. 332). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Simon H.A. (1978) Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. American Economic Review 68: 1–16Google Scholar
  15. Simon H.A. (1986) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire C.B., Radner R. (eds) Decision and organization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 161–176Google Scholar
  16. Simon H.A. (1990) Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology 41: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Verhey S.D. (2005) The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience 55: 996–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations