Evolution, Atheism, and Groupthink

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

In an article about climate screams, the word groupthink was used. It sounds like something from George Orwell, but is actually a psychological phenomenon. In some ways it is like herd mentality where everyone goes in the same direction, but groupthink is more complex.

Even though I've used the word and had a cursory knowledge of the concept, I wanted to get a better understanding of groupthink. I found a good article to which I will add my own thoughts, linking to it later.

Although it sounds like a word from Orwell, groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that restricts thought. Atheists and evolutionists fall into this herd mentality.
Credit: Unsplash / Eric Herni

Conformity involves people changing their actions (and probably their thoughts as well) so they can fit in with a group, but groupthink involves the decision-making process. What do you think happens when people appeal to the consensus, whether it is evolution, climate change, or something else that is highly charged? There is an appeal to emotion.

Psychologist Dr. Irving L. Janis coined the word in 1972. People go with the views of a group and practice self-censorship instead of speaking at odds with the majority. This is increased if there is a strong authority figure.

When reading the article, I noticed how groupthink affects evolutionists and atheists. (One reason I use terms like Darwin's disciples and the like is to emphasize their herd mentality and dedication to the materialism narrative.) Individuals in groups — especially keyboard warriors, since people are less inclined to be vituperative in person — are prone to groupthink. Ironically, atheists often call themselves "freethinkers", but that is not true at all.

I have written statements to professing atheists that they do not need to please their friends and continue to reject salvation through Jesus Christ. (Wouldn't a true friend allow people to do what they felt was right for themselves, even if it meant leaving atheism?) Instead, they continue with tribalism: not one of us, therefore bad. They perpetuate false stereotypes against Christians and especially creationists, even though they know such things are ridiculous.

It is probably in an internet atheist instruction manual somewhere that it is streng verboten to say anything good about a Christian. Not even, "Nice graphic", "Good placement of a Monty Python reference", "Good points", or anything like that. Such things are exceptionally rare. In fact, I think there has only been one time that I have seen an atheist speak to the herd by saying, "Okay, you don't have to be a jerk about it." Christians, however, are told to instruct and rebuke one another in love.

Similarly, there is a distinct lack of original though among atheists. Many of us have noticed that objections, "memes", rhetoric, arguments, and so forth tend to be boilerplate material. Even though there are answers readily available for questions and alleged Bible contradictions, they disingenuously spread false material anyway. For example, see "Online skeptics have a serious copy-and-paste problem".

While groupthink has an illusion of unanimity, mavericks that jump the corral fence are often shunned by the herd. The Dissent from Darwin online statement has a section for potential signers to consider the risks to their careers and tenure. From my observations, former professing atheists who became Christians seem to receive greater attacks from their former comrades than others. It must really grate on atheists that there are biblical creation scientists who contribute to their secular fields as well as to creation science, but they are former atheists and evolutionists.

Groupthink is strong when members are united in a belief system, and the element of hatred toward outsiders increases this. Atheists and evolutionists tend to dehumanize biblical creationists. Although their epistemology is incoherent and they cannot explain their logical or moral standards, we are bad people. Because atheism. Because evolutionism. Members of the tribe that may want to speak (or even think) contrary to the consensus often suppress themselves for the sake of the herd and consensus.

As I have said many times, the existence of God, evidence for creation science — those are not strictly intellectual matters, but spiritual in nature. When we cogently answer questions, we receive ridicule 😆 instead of rational responses. Spiritual? Why else would people use every excuse in the book (and then write new excuse books) to avoid seeing our side? Why constantly misrepresent what we believe and teach, not even "allowing" us the right to be "wrong"? 

Meanwhile, there are some people who are not so hard-hearted and willing to consider evidence for creation and, ultimately, the message of repentance, love, and forgiveness through Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit is working on them. Our message is above and beyond the hopelessness of naturalism. It is true and vitally important. Professing atheists can rebel against their fundamentally-flawed worldview and break away. Don't let your so-called friends stop you from life.

As promised, the article that inspired my own is "What is Groupthink?"

Comments