I think this just underscores the original post’s point.
The lesson here isn’t that Christians are probably right or that Christians are probably wrong. The lesson here is that you can go very wrong by relying on the absurdity heuristic. And that that’s true even when the claim seems really absurd.
Let’s take a hypothetical atheist who really does think that all Christians believe in the literal word of the Bible. This atheist might reject the whole of Christianity because of the absurdity of talking snakes. Having rejected the entire school of thought that all of Christianity represents, he never has the opportunity to find out that he was wrong (about all Christians taking the Bible literally). Therefore be never realises that he had flawed reasons for rejecting religion.
The woman in the story has a similarly inaccurate understanding of what (many) evolutionists believe. The flawed understanding is part of the issue.
This bias applies to people who reject an idea on the grounds that it seems absurd, but their assessment of ‘absurdity’ is based on their limited, probably inaccurate, understanding of the topic.
I think this just underscores the original post’s point.
The lesson here isn’t that Christians are probably right or that Christians are probably wrong. The lesson here is that you can go very wrong by relying on the absurdity heuristic. And that that’s true even when the claim seems really absurd.
Let’s take a hypothetical atheist who really does think that all Christians believe in the literal word of the Bible. This atheist might reject the whole of Christianity because of the absurdity of talking snakes. Having rejected the entire school of thought that all of Christianity represents, he never has the opportunity to find out that he was wrong (about all Christians taking the Bible literally). Therefore be never realises that he had flawed reasons for rejecting religion.
The woman in the story has a similarly inaccurate understanding of what (many) evolutionists believe. The flawed understanding is part of the issue.
This bias applies to people who reject an idea on the grounds that it seems absurd, but their assessment of ‘absurdity’ is based on their limited, probably inaccurate, understanding of the topic.