一个持续内部矛盾的案例:进化论和创造主义之间尚未解决的矛盾

IF 0.6 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
S. Emlen Metz, D. Weisberg, Michael Weisberg
{"title":"一个持续内部矛盾的案例:进化论和创造主义之间尚未解决的矛盾","authors":"S. Emlen Metz, D. Weisberg, Michael Weisberg","doi":"10.1163/15685373-12340088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nMany people feel the pull of both creationism and evolution as explanations for the origin of species, despite the direct contradiction. Some respond by endorsing theistic evolution, integrating the scientific and religious explanations by positing that God initiated or guided the process of evolution. Others, however, simultaneously endorse both evolution and creationism despite the contradiction. Here, we illustrate this puzzling phenomenon with interviews with a diverse sample. This qualitative data reveals several approaches to coping with simultaneous inconsistent explanations. For example, some people seem to manage this contradiction by separating out ideological claims, which prioritize identity expression, from fact claims, which prioritize truth. Fitting with this interpretation, ambivalent individuals tended to call explanations “beliefs” (not knowledge), avoid mention of truth or falsity, and ground one or both beliefs in identity and personal history. We conclude with a brief discussion of the affordances of this distinction.","PeriodicalId":46186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognition and Culture","volume":"20 1","pages":"338-354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685373-12340088","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Case of Sustained Internal Contradiction: Unresolved Ambivalence between Evolution and Creationism\",\"authors\":\"S. Emlen Metz, D. Weisberg, Michael Weisberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15685373-12340088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nMany people feel the pull of both creationism and evolution as explanations for the origin of species, despite the direct contradiction. Some respond by endorsing theistic evolution, integrating the scientific and religious explanations by positing that God initiated or guided the process of evolution. Others, however, simultaneously endorse both evolution and creationism despite the contradiction. Here, we illustrate this puzzling phenomenon with interviews with a diverse sample. This qualitative data reveals several approaches to coping with simultaneous inconsistent explanations. For example, some people seem to manage this contradiction by separating out ideological claims, which prioritize identity expression, from fact claims, which prioritize truth. Fitting with this interpretation, ambivalent individuals tended to call explanations “beliefs” (not knowledge), avoid mention of truth or falsity, and ground one or both beliefs in identity and personal history. We conclude with a brief discussion of the affordances of this distinction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognition and Culture\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"338-354\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685373-12340088\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognition and Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognition and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

许多人感受到神创论和进化论对物种起源的解释的吸引力,尽管存在直接的矛盾。一些人的回应是支持有神论进化论,将科学和宗教解释结合起来,认为上帝发起或引导了进化过程。然而,尽管存在矛盾,其他人同时支持进化论和创造论。在这里,我们通过对不同样本的采访来说明这一令人困惑的现象。这一定性数据揭示了几种处理同时出现的不一致解释的方法。例如,一些人似乎通过将优先考虑身份表达的意识形态主张与优先考虑真相的事实主张分开来处理这种矛盾。符合这种解释,矛盾的个人倾向于将解释称为“信仰”(而不是知识),避免提及真实或虚假,并将一种或两种信仰都建立在身份和个人历史中。最后,我们简要讨论了这种区别的可供性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Case of Sustained Internal Contradiction: Unresolved Ambivalence between Evolution and Creationism
Many people feel the pull of both creationism and evolution as explanations for the origin of species, despite the direct contradiction. Some respond by endorsing theistic evolution, integrating the scientific and religious explanations by positing that God initiated or guided the process of evolution. Others, however, simultaneously endorse both evolution and creationism despite the contradiction. Here, we illustrate this puzzling phenomenon with interviews with a diverse sample. This qualitative data reveals several approaches to coping with simultaneous inconsistent explanations. For example, some people seem to manage this contradiction by separating out ideological claims, which prioritize identity expression, from fact claims, which prioritize truth. Fitting with this interpretation, ambivalent individuals tended to call explanations “beliefs” (not knowledge), avoid mention of truth or falsity, and ground one or both beliefs in identity and personal history. We conclude with a brief discussion of the affordances of this distinction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognition and Culture
Journal of Cognition and Culture PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cognition and Culture provides an interdisciplinary forum for exploring the mental foundations of culture and the cultural foundations of mental life. The primary focus of the journal is on explanations of cultural phenomena in terms of acquisition, representation and transmission involving cognitive capacities without excluding the study of cultural differences. The journal contains articles, commentaries, reports of experiments, and book reviews that emerge out of the inquiries by, and conversations between, scholars in experimental psychology, developmental psychology, social cognition, neuroscience, human evolution, cognitive science of religion, and cognitive anthropology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信