A question for the group
VBM
someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
the supernatural as part of reality.
Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
this origins debate?
In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
snex
wrote:
since the argument in your example tacitly assumes that faith is a
valid way to gain knowledge, nothing could possibly change the mind of
the creationist. you have already granted him the source of his
creationism as valid.
lets assume that we teach him basic biology from the ground up,
constantly bringing in reasons that humans share genetic ancestry with
great apes. so what? he has FAITH that god did it 6000 years ago as
described in what you already agreed was god's own words on the
matter.
you cant get a creationist to change his mind until you get him to
understand that EVIDENCE MATTERS.
VBM
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ed2b6046-7aef-442a...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You are making some false assumptions here. You are assuming that all
people of faith insist that God created 6,000 years ago, or that if they
believe that, they would never change that belief. You continually seem to
forget the majority of people of faith who fully accept the evidence, and
thus agree that evolution is correct. There is nothing mutually exclusive
between a belief in the supernatural and an acceptance of the evidence for
evolution, an old earth, or just about anything other legitimate scientific
proposition.
So, having cleared up that misconception, what would your approach be, with
an eye to NOT bothering to argue against their supernatural worldview?
snex
wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
the fact that they believe in a supernatural means that they do not
accept the principle that "evidence matters." any beliefs that they
choose to place under their blanket of faith therefore cannot be
changed by appeals to evidence.
>
> So, having cleared up that misconception, what would your approach be, with
> an eye to NOT bothering to argue against their supernatural worldview?
if they have already conceded that evidence doesnt matter, how can you
possibly sway them with evidence? unfortunately, evidence is all i
have to offer.
Bob D
wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
VBM, It was you that introduced this thread with the notion of a
supernatural believing creationist christian.
There are many people of faith who are aren't so. We know that. So why
then challenge snew for his reply?
Maybe you should state more clearly the parameters of this 'christian'
of whom you speak.
There are so many christian flavours, you will need to be very precise
here.
Tiny Bulcher
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
> acceptance of the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing
> why they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in
> regards to this origins debate?
Why would we want to?
VBM
OK, since you are still starting with another misconception, we should clear
that out of the way first. Your conclusion that to the person of faith,
evidence does not matter, is entirely false. The evidence does matter,
indeed. You may be so used to dealing with those creationists that want to
ignore the evidence, or minimize the value of the evidence to fit their
religious preconceptions that you have developed a false idea of what
"people of faith" MUST be about.
Many people with religious faith, who have a worldview that includes an
acceptance of the supernatural, completely accept that the actual, material
evidence MUST be given its full weight and be factored honestly into every
decision. And, we must accept the evidence to the degree (no more and no
less) that the evidence demands, just as any non-theist would do. That is
why I accept evolution, an old earth, and really every scientific
proposition out there to the same degree any non-theist would, really. This
does not, in any way, undermine my faith that God is behind all of it, and
that belief is simply not something that science can speak about one way or
the other (as any scientist will acknowledge).
So, with that cleared away, what would your approach be, knowing that they
could be receptive to your evidence even if they do not share your
worldview?
VBM
"Bob D" <ju....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5311f29-f635-418a...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Exactly what I said, a Christian Creationist, and since all Christians
accept the supernatural as part of their worldview, that is a given.
What I am pointing out is that his characterizations do not fit all
Christians who are currently creationists and have that worldview. Many
Christians who are creationists can be convinced of evolution, I have seen
this happen many, many times. Since there is nothing inherent about the
acceptance of the supernatural which precludes acceptance of science,
including acceptance of evolution, then the point is what arguments would
you use to convince this creationist without attacking his worldview? It
can be done, since it HAS been done.
VBM
"Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:A--dnVf7IrYQEgra...@bt.com...
Oh, gosh, many reasons. First and foremost, aren't we all concerned that
the misguided segment of the religious community (not the whole religious
community) wants to force Creationism into the classrooms? Or force science
to consider stuff like the supernatural, and other nonsensical stuff?
If we could get more Christians to back off of these positions (and is
definitely possible), wouldn't that be worth doing?
slothrop
wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The assumption is not, as I can tell, that the people you speak of
believe the world is 6000 years old. The assumption is that all people
who believe in the supernatural can somehow draw the same conclusions
about ANYTHING. Since supernatural denotes arbitrariness (I don't see
how this denotation can be avoided), anything can be interpreted any
way the person espousing supernaturalism sees fit.
You seem to be trying to tell people what aspects of their lives
should be amenable to supernatural explanations and which ones
shouldn't. "You silly fundies! You can believe in extra-natural
things, just not here and here and here. But there and there and there
is alright." Says who?
You're not a deist, I assume? Do you believe God intervenes at all in
the world today? If so, you're making a statement that supernatural
things are happening. And you can believe that and deny the fundies
similar beliefs?
If you are a deist, I'm confused as to the point of the original
question.
slothrop
VBM
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:094b7e3a-7f2c-4873...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No, I am not a deist, I am a Christian. And my point is that even a
Christian with a supernatural worldview can accept the evidence where
evidence exists and is convincing. There is a huge difference between
accepting that science is how we explain
the world and insisting that God does not still interact with that world.
Science is how we can determine how the universe works, and has worked,
*naturally*. If there is a supernatural event, then this simply falls
outside of what happens naturally (by definition) and science really has
nothing to say one way or the other about it (and most scientists would
agree with this). Now, of course, scientific evidence can definitely
indicate whether a particular proposed supernatural event actually occurred
(or occurred in a proposed way), as with the idea of a global flood. But
there is nothing about science as a discipline which states that the
supernatural can not, or does not, happen. For example, with the
resurrection, science definitely says that, in the natural course of events,
such an event can not happen. Period. But science does not say that it has
never happened, at best it can say that if it happened, it would have to be
something outside of the natural course of events.
What I am proposing is that science should be allowed to get along with its
job of figuring out how things work naturally. And, if there is evidence
that a particular supernatural event did NOT take place, then we have to
accept that and move on. Scientific evidence should be given its full
weight and accepted where it is convincing.
And this is a position that I think we can take with creationists. Not
saying that they HAVE to accept it, but that it is an option they should
consider. I am not dictating to my fellow Christians, but simply attempting
to give those with closed minds an alternative way to look at it, one that
millions of Christians have no problem with.
John Brockbank
First, do a little study and come back to me tomorrow, and show me
that you know and understand how to prove Pythagoras' theorem to be
true. I would stress of course that you do this properly to me in
person and not merely in writing which you have nicked from
somewhere. Such basic projects in maths, geometry, trigonometry and
so on would continue for a while.
At the same time, I would also set a task in physics, asking you to
demonstrate a good knowledge on Newton's mechanics, and simple
calculus. I would want you to demonstrate that you are confident with
how to find a sky object using stellar coordinates. Such projects to
familiarise yourself with the physical world would continue but for
rather longer than did the maths ones.
On to chemistry where you would need to understand the atomic theory
behind the periodic table (which you would learn by heart) etc.
Provided that you worked hard it would take you about 5 years study to
reach the point where a grammar school boy aged 15 is preparing for
basic O levels (or A grade GCSE) in science.
You get the idea I am sure. Asking for a snappy answer is like asking
a skilled pianist to cut the crap and just show you quickly in the
next minute how to play concertos.
Perhaps you think this is being snooty. But I can assure you that I
am the real thing here; learning about science takes hard work and
perseverence and talent; and so does, say learning how to make
rousing sermons and convert people to your religion in sufficient
numbers to make it worth while.
Some things are hard to learn and take effort and time. Some things
are easier. If you want to learn to juggle, or do card tricks, or use
a word processor, you can learn to do those things in a couple of
hours. If you want to learn C and JavaScript, it will mean effort and
time. But creationism is merely giving in and refusing to learn
anything at all. If you are that way inclined, it is fine with me, as
long as I can give you a tip. Join in on the side of the men
receiving the financial contributions, don't be one of the mugs giving
money.
Mark VandeWettering
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> this origins debate?
I wouldn't presume to ask them to do anything.
> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
If someone believes in ghosts and leprechauns, and you can convince them
that leprechauns don't exist, but they still believe in ghosts, have you
achieved anything significant?
> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
But I don't respect their faith. I respect their actions in proportion
their merit. If their actions are benevolent and thoughtful, I give
them respect. If not, well, then not so much. If their faith doesn't
guide their actions in positive ways, what good is it?
Mark
coaster
If one is inclined to attempt to change another person's world view
(something which I highly recommend) then the most obvious course
would be to attack that person's beliefs (or belief system) based on
the legality of physics. But you recognize this as 'obvious' in some
way and so want to go beyond that. Ok, fine. But I dont' think there
is much beyond that... at least not involving science or logic.
Pretty much all you would have left is the philosophical rant; "What
if you're wrong?". "What if you've wasted your time believe in this
nonsense?". Your only course at that point is to try to get them to
at least challenge their beliefs thus demonstrating that what defines
logic as truth-seeking is scrutiny. Get them to see that science is,
not only humble, but the MOST humble of all forms of rationalization
and that uncertainty leads to more truth than certainty. You may
still hit a brick wall when they finally get around to admitting that
FAITH certain for a reason. But then you can get into some "warm
blanket" metaphor or something.
VBM
that creationist.
Tell me how your response below answers that question.
"John Brockbank" <JohnBr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:afe42045-08be-44c1...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Mark VandeWettering
> news:A--dnVf7IrYQEgra...@bt.com...
>> Thus cwaeth VBM :
>> > Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
>> > someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
>> > acceptance of the supernatural as part of reality.
>> >
>> > Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing
>> > why they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in
>> > regards to this origins debate?
>>
>> Why would we want to?
>
> Oh, gosh, many reasons. First and foremost, aren't we all concerned that
> the misguided segment of the religious community (not the whole religious
> community) wants to force Creationism into the classrooms?
Actually I'm concerned that all members of the religious community might
be misguided in precisely that way, to a greater or lesser degree.
If you look at the history of elections in the U.S., a public admission
of atheism is essentially fatal: no professed atheists get elected to
office. Why is that?
> Or force science to consider stuff like the supernatural, and other
> nonsensical stuff?
The problem is drawing the line, isn't it? Is the Resurrection
nonsense? Miracles? Jesus appearing on a piece of Toast? Behe
thinks that the best evidence for God is found in the bacterial
flagellum, if I was of a theistic bent, I'd think that was pretty
absurd too.
> If we could get more Christians to back off of these positions (and is
> definitely possible), wouldn't that be worth doing?
In the sense that establishing a firewall and only allowing half the
town to burn down, perhaps. But maybe we should just remove the sage
brush that surrounds our homes instead.
Mark
VBM
"coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:197ef4fd-b6ef-4189...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
But I am not asking you to attempt to change their worldview. That is the
problem here. Everyone is attempting to change people's worldview rather
than change their thoughts on the issue of evolution, the age of the
universe, etc. Those things for which this group is all about. All
throughout the TO site, there are many statements that evolution and an old
earth, etc, are perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview. So, why is
the ONLY approach here nowadays (as opposed to the old days) to simply
attack the worldview?
Do you not know how many millions of Christians accept all the same things
you do about things like evolution? There is a HUGE, HUGE efficacy to
presenting this option to those remaining Christians who insist on young
earth creationism and who deny evolution. One of the purposes of TO in the
first place is to argue against those viewpoints so that they don't become
politically and socially mandated.
You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting the
wrong battle.
chris thompson
wrote:
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> this origins debate?
Only this: that their religion should be kept out of the public
schools, and evolution should be kept in.
Chris
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Non Sequitur You hae just said the same thing, in two different ways.
" A difference which makes no difference is no difference. " James
Blish.
> Those things for which this group is all about. All
> throughout the TO site, there are many statements that evolution and an old
> earth, etc, are perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview. So, why is
> the ONLY approach here nowadays (as opposed to the old days) to simply
> attack the worldview?
Because no particular one here is obligated to accept that view that
science
can be compatible with a xtian worldview. Rather, since it is science
that
deals with the real universe, and actual facts from it, it is religion
who
carries the burden of being compatible with science. At least in my
view,
and I dare say, in the views of not a few others here.
> Do you not know how many millions of Christians accept all the same things
> you do about things like evolution?
Then, where are they all, when Creationists try to make their towns/
states
teach IDiocy ? Uh huh.
> There is a HUGE, HUGE efficacy to
> presenting this option to those remaining Christians who insist on young
> earth creationism and who deny evolution. One of the purposes of TO in the
> first place is to argue against those viewpoints so that they don't become
> politically and socially mandated.
Sure. But, old Earth creationism is just as daffy, just as
unscientific,
and just as much an imposition of religion over science, especially
when it's adherants try to force it into science classes.
So, young or old Earth creationism, its all fundamentally the same
IDiotic crap, and all of it needs to be fought with actual science and
facts.
> You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting the
> wrong battle.
Look up " Freedom Of Speech " sometime. Among what it means is that
you do get to say what you just did. But, no one has to listen to you,
or
adopt your worldview.
In some ways, your demands are as bad as what the IDiots demand;
obedience. Pass.
Andre
Dr.GH
wrote:
Well, it would take too long to try and teach them science and then
try to show them how science discredited their biblical
interpretations.
And it is their biblical interpretations that are in question.
Consequently, I address their biblical interpreations and argue that
the YEC position is not supported biblically.
In a short sketch, I point out that the Bible asserts that the creator
is honest: (eg. Psalm19:
1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge. (New American Standard Bible)
Psalm 85:11 reads, "Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness
looks down from heaven" (NASB). The Hebrew word for truth, emet,
basically means "certainty and dependability."
The Bible demands believers to acknowledge that God is truthful and
forthright. The Bible also demands that believers acknowledge the
Creation as an honest testament to God's existence and nature.
After that, I point out that this is attested also in the New
Testament where Romans 1:18-20 asserted that the physical universe is
a true testament to God's nature.
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness,
19. because that which is known about God is evident within them; for
God made it evident to them.
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse.
If the universe is a falsehood and created to be misleading, then
these verses are obviously false. The "created with age" argument
used by YECs violates al the verses above, and many more. If the
creationist still wants to discuss the Bible, we can then turn to the
various creation stories from biblical and other ancient mideast
sources. Alternately, we can then discuss the science.
Wakboth
wrote:
> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think there are two main things contributing to this. Firstly,
Usenet is declining, and the creationists that this group gets tend to
be the bottom-of-the-barrel types whose minds are unamenable to
change, like McNameless and Ray, who are impervious to facts, logic,
reason or even mockery.
Secondly, a lot (probably the majority) of the posters are Americans,
or follow the US politics closely. I think the increasing co-option of
the evangelical Christianity by the Republicans, and vice versa, and
the loudness and the visibility of the hardcore fundamentalists in
media, has tainted all Christianity with the appalling politics and
policies of the Bush admin. Combined with the Islamist terrorism, I
think there are a lot of people who are nauseated with theism.
> Do you not know how many millions of Christians accept all the same things
> you do about things like evolution? There is a HUGE, HUGE efficacy to
> presenting this option to those remaining Christians who insist on young
> earth creationism and who deny evolution. One of the purposes of TO in the
> first place is to argue against those viewpoints so that they don't become
> politically and socially mandated.
>
> You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting the
> wrong battle.
Agreed.
-- Wakboth
Mark VandeWettering
> But I am not asking you to attempt to change their worldview. That is the
> problem here.
That's not the problem that _you recognize_ here. Other people have
a differing perspective.
> Everyone is attempting to change people's worldview rather than change
> their thoughts on the issue of evolution, the age of the universe,
> etc. Those things for which this group is all about. All throughout
> the TO site, there are many statements that evolution and an old
> earth, etc, are perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview. So,
> why is the ONLY approach here nowadays (as opposed to the old days) to
> simply attack the worldview?
I think you are overstating the situation. There are (as you noted)
Christians in this group who are sympathetic to your ideas and thought
your original posting was POTM material. I, of course, had a different
take on it, and said so. You could have chosen to discuss the issues
with them rather than argue with me, but you didn't. You instead implied
that I didn't really understand what you wrote, and should behave in some
different way. I disagreed with that as well.
> Do you not know how many millions of Christians accept all the same things
> you do about things like evolution?
Yes, I do. And they have plenty of other irrational beliefs that sculpt
their actions. Some are positive influences on society. Some are not.
We might reasonably argue whether teaching kids that Santa Claus exists
is a good thing. On the positive side, it teaches them about the spirit
of giving. It gives them a sense of wonderment about the season. It
also teaches them that if they want nice presents, they should be good.
But on the other hand, in the end you are teaching your kids something
that isn't true.
Do the positives outweigh the negatives?
> There is a HUGE, HUGE efficacy to
> presenting this option to those remaining Christians who insist on young
> earth creationism and who deny evolution. One of the purposes of TO in the
> first place is to argue against those viewpoints so that they don't become
> politically and socially mandated.
I think you overestimate it's importance.
> You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting the
> wrong battle.
I'm not fighting the same battle as you. I don't think it's wrong.
Mark
Christopher Denney
The problem is, most don't want a dialogue and haven't given it much
thought beyond going along with "whatever the preacher says"
The lazier thinkers out there cannot really be persuaded, they want to
be told, unequivocally, what the truth is. Their preachers and co-
religionists give them the certainty, so they do not need to think for
themselves. The only way to change their views, is to change the views
of the people who provide them their views, AND GET THEM TO PREACH
THAT.
snex
then present the evidence for god. if you cant, demonstrate your
willingness to abide by evidence by abandoning your belief in him.
> You may be so used to dealing with those creationists that want to
> ignore the evidence, or minimize the value of the evidence to fit their
> religious preconceptions that you have developed a false idea of what
> "people of faith" MUST be about.
>
> Many people with religious faith, who have a worldview that includes an
> acceptance of the supernatural, completely accept that the actual, material
> evidence MUST be given its full weight and be factored honestly into every
> decision.
then where is the evidence for god? where did evidence come into play
in your decision to believe in him?
> And, we must accept the evidence to the degree (no more and no
> less) that the evidence demands, just as any non-theist would do.
then abandon your belief in god!
VBM
"Dr.GH" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0e6b4596-c9bc-4c56...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Very good, I think that is a very good approach.
VBM
"Christopher Denney" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c47f6a3e-c219-4d39...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That is a very good point, and the Clergy Letter Project is a great start
there. It has encouraged at least one pastor I know to reconsider how he
approaches the subject from the pulpit.
VBM
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:4797a442$0$85779$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> VBM wrote:
>
> > For example, with the resurrection, science definitely says that, in
> > the natural course of events, such an event can not happen. Period.
> > But science does not say that it has never happened,
>
Not scientifically, since science can not confirm or deny the supernatural.
>
> > at best it can say that if it happened, it would have to be something
> > outside of the natural course of events.
>
> If it ever did happen, it surely was within the natural course of events,
> ie. within observable nature. People would have seen it happen. It would
> therefore be a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.
Oh, yes, very much so. It would have been a legitimate object of scientific
inquiry. In short, scientific analysis at the time could have confirmed
that the miracle did NOT happen (ie, finding Jesus' dead body), but it could
not really confirm that it DID happen, since it would then fall outside of
science's perview. Science can only provide the best natural explanation,
so it would be constrained to come up with the most likely non-supernatural
scenario, and rightly so.
snex
wrote:
> "nmp" <addr...@is.invalid> wrote in message
how could it not confirm it did happen? the guy was dead, and now hes
alive and walking around. what more confirmation do you need?
John Harshman
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> this origins debate?
>
> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>
> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>
>
both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
fatal to their religion.
It seems to me that the first step there is to demonstrate that they
have already abandoned it, since they believe (one would hope) that the
earth is a sphere, that it goes around the sun, and so on. If you can
accept the passages that claim a flat earth, solid sky, immobile earth,
etc., as non-literal, what's to keep you from accepting a 6-day creation
of separate kinds and a global flood as non-literal? When these facts
became accepted by science, believers discovered that they'd been
reading the bible wrong. Same with deep time and evolution.
One could also try a philosophical approach. Taking the old testament
literally reveals a small, limited, petty god who doesn't closely
resemble what (again, one would hope) Christians believe in. Punishment
of unborn generations for something a remote ancestor did? Death of all
life on earth, including babies, for the sins of some humans? It just
doesn't make sense, and it's immoral to boot. Punishment should be of
the guilty, and the punishment should fit the crime.
But the fact is that committed creationists have answers for all that.
The answers don't make sense, but they don't have to. In order to make
any progress you would have to convince them that their religion doesn't
depend on creationism and biblical literalism (as currently
interpreted). Perhaps you should determine what their religion does
depend on. If god came to you in a vision and told you the scientists
were right, forget the six-day stuff, it was always a metaphorical
account, would you still have faith? If so, what's the problem with
accepting science?
Greg Guarino
<v.mca...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>
>Exactly what I said, a Christian Creationist, and since all Christians
>accept the supernatural as part of their worldview, that is a given.
I think you are using words in a different way than they are usually
used, at least here on T.O. You use "creationism" to mean the belief
in a supernatural being who created the universe in any manner at
all, including through the use of the "natural" processes we discover
through science. "Creationism" as it is used here generally refers to
a belief that God created the universe, the Earth and especially life
in a particular way, which usually contradicts the accepted science.
These beliefs can range from a "meddling" creator, who only intervenes
occasionally, allowing natural processes to do most of the day to day
scutwork, to YECs, who believe the Earth and life were created in
their present form by fiat a few thousand years ago, to people who
believe that there are in reality no physical "laws" at all; God
guides each chemical reaction, each planet in its orbit, each leaf to
face the sun. That those things seem to react consistently is merely a
result of how God usually chooses to do things.
I may answer the rest of your questions if I get the time, but for now
it would facilitate the discussion if you did not use "creationist" to
refer to people others might call "Theistic Evolutionists" or even
Deists.
Greg Guarino
Tiny Bulcher
No. There isn't any possible way to reason someone out of a faith-based
view. They have to work their own way out of it. All we can do is point
out to bystanders why we think their view is wrong, ridiculous and
harmful. Attempting to 'convert' the creationist is a waste of our time
and energy.
VBM
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
> VBM wrote:
>
> > Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
> > engage in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>
> Make sure they understand what science is and isn't. Ignorance can be
> cured and there is no excuse for it if proper education is available for
> you.
>
> Perhaps... A way to stimulate their interest could be to show them
> exactly how they have been lied to. Show them Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
>
> Of course, some people are perfectly resistant to any approach. There
> *are* hopeless cases out there.
I like that "make sure they understand what science is and isn't" part.
Very good.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> But I am not asking you to attempt to change their worldview. That is
> the problem here. Everyone is attempting to change people's worldview
> rather than change their thoughts on the issue of evolution, the age
> of the universe, etc.
Everyone? Evidence please?
> So, why is the ONLY approach here nowadays (as opposed to
> the old days) to simply attack the worldview?
It isn't. You are imagining things.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
VBM
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b2cd4de-947e-43c1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Would not science, as a discipline, simply have nothing to say about it
anymore? I am not talking about PEOPLE and their individual conclusions,
but the methodological naturalistic discipline we call science. It could
not conclude "the supernatural happens". All it could conclude is "that
person that was deemed to be dead, now is alive", stated as a fact. What
would the scientific hypothesis be, at that point? It could not be "a
supernatural event happened". It would be obligated, according to every
scientist I have ever heard from, to determine what the best natural
explanation could be.
VBM
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:p%Nlj.440$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Those are wonderful ways of going about it. Yes, very often they have their
pat answers, but I have found that using some of those very arguments, many
of them will come around! Thanks!
VBM
"Greg Guarino" <gr...@risky-biz.com> wrote in message
news:gjafp3lqomsrh4itj...@4ax.com...
Oh, you are right, I am referring to the type of Creationists you describe.
My point is that even that type of Creationist has been known to reconsider
their YEC or OEC viewpoint for one which accepts scientific evidence, the
way a TE does, which is much better for the purposes of science and society.
So, my question is what arguments you would use to get someone off of that
YEC dime, without simply attacking their worldview. Some have already given
some ideas.
snex
wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
if that is your answer, then if you personally saw jesus rise from the
dead, you would still not be justified in believing he was the son of
god, or had some kind of supernatural power.
yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?
VBM
No, it is not, I have done it often. Not to reason them out of
"faith-based" views, per se, since I am a faith-based person myself, but to
reason them away from a YEC position, one dangerous to science and society.
VBM
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
> VBM wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > But I am not asking you to attempt to change their worldview. That is
> > the problem here. Everyone is attempting to change people's worldview
> > rather than change their thoughts on the issue of evolution, the age of
> > the universe, etc.
>
>
> Some people MUST abandon their naïve worldviews before they are able to
> see the world as (science shows) it really is.
But what about those millions of Christians who share a worldview of
accepting the supernatural, and even the same theological beliefs as those
Creationists, but DON'T deny evolution or an old earth?
snex
wrote:
> "Tiny Bulcher" <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fvKdnes_LKK_Mgra...@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > Thus cwaeth VBM :
a famous person once said "a person cannot be reasoned out of what
they weren't reasoned into."
Tiny Bulcher
Possibly your definition of 'reason' is different from mine. *shrug*.
I'm not going to bother arguing the point, as I would merely replicate
what Mark van de Wettering has already said, and better than I could. If
you think it's possible, have a go at reasoning with Ray, and the best
of British luck.
VBM
Oh, yes, I would believe, and I suspect you would believe that as well. But
it is not something that the discipline of science could confirm or deny,
other than confirming the facts present and observable. Again, science, as
a methodological naturalistic discipline, could not posit that the
explanation of the data was that a supernatural event occurred. At least,
that is what scientists have told me over and over.
> yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
> was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
> arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
> through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
> actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
> supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
> witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?
No, an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am right
now, which is entirely convinced. Since this is a faith issue for me, I do
not need the actual evidence of that event to believe it. But, if there was
hard and fast evidence that that particular event did NOT happen (let's say
I could travel back in time and see the actual body of Jesus rot away to
nothing), then I would no longer believe it.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> VBM wrote:
> > Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> > someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> > the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> > Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> > they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> > this origins debate?
>
> > In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> > believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
> > creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>
> > Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
> > in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>
> The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
> both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
> fatal to their religion.
>
This comment is a demand for neo-Darwinian scientific literalism to
have and maintain preeminence over the textual evidence of the Bible
in the public sphere, AND it is a demand for Biblical worldviewists to
acknowledge this preeminence. Harshman's comment rightly recognizes
(by unspoken presupposition) that only one voice can occupy the throne
of preeminence because neo-Darwinian "science" and the Bible cannot
both be literally true at the same time. One group must relinquish its
claim.
"There is nothing new under the sun."
This is as old as Antiochus Epiphanes ("God with us") telling the Jews
that they could worship as they please as long as they bowed to him
first (preeminence).
We will never bow to Harshman and what he represents (scientism) -
never.
Ray
SNIP Harshman's ridiculous "examples" of Biblical literalism
(explained by his Atheism), "examples" that anyone can do to ANY
text....
snex
any scientist that tries to differentiate between "natural" and
"supernatural" events is talking out of his behind. science doesnt
understand any such distinction. science examines *events,* and
hypothesizes and tests causes for those events. any hypotheses that
cannot, in principle, be tested are rejected. not put on the shelf -
outright rejected.
>
> > yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
> > was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
> > arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
> > through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
> > actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
> > supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
> > witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?
>
> No, an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am right
> now, which is entirely convinced. Since this is a faith issue for me, I do
> not need the actual evidence of that event to believe it. But, if there was
> hard and fast evidence that that particular event did NOT happen (let's say
> I could travel back in time and see the actual body of Jesus rot away to
> nothing), then I would no longer believe it.
why dont you believe that jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead on faith?
what is your criteria for what propositions you accept on faith? are
you rolling a d20 or what?
VBM
As I told Mark, there is not much use talking to the village idiot.
What has worked most often is the following:
-Pointing out that evolution does not contradict Scripture, just a
particular reading of Scripture
-There is nothing inherently atheistic about evolution (although it is
arguments like those that predominate this forum that make these arguments
more and more difficult).
-Explain why the text of Genesis 1 and 2 is better read figuratively than
literally, based on a cultural/historical analysis
-Use the example of geocentrism, etc.
VBM
No, I got nothin' higher than d6 here at the moment.
Are you asking the basis for my faith? Well, that is something that would
be entirely unconvincing to you, and I entirely understand that. My faith
is based entirely on my subjective spiritual experience combined with a lack
of any convincing evidence that such experience is entirely bogus. I do not
pretend, even for a moment, that this should be convincing to anyone who
limits what they believe is "true" to what can be derived at with logic or
material evidence. That is why I have not attempted to convince you that my
worldview is the correct one. I have entirely respected your worldview, and
simply tried to explain mine.
VBM
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7db5184-a98f-43ff...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You know, I am coming to the conclusion that you may be the one who has
single-handedly reduced this entire forum to alt-atheism. If I was not a
Christian, you would drive me to that level of argument as well.
snex
if logic and material evidence are not the only tools in your toolbox,
then your conclusions are worthless. logic and material evidence are
the only tools whose reliability is confirmed to any degree. people
who insist on using other tools without first demonstrating that they
are reliable have no place in the debate.
no doubt you see this as "hostility," but what it really is is
ensuring that error is eliminated. you want to insist that you be
given an exception when using your error-ridden tools, and you throw a
fit when people tell you that it doesnt work that way. you are an
example of the hypocrites jesus preached about, who refuses to remove
the log in his own eye before telling others about the mote in their
own. if you cannot rid yourself of error-ridden tools, then you should
not presume to tell others to rid themselves of theirs.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> this origins debate?
In my 25-plus years of fighting creationists, I've seen roughly nine
or ten people be converted from fundamentalist creationism to
something else (usually theistic evolution).
In *every case*, every single one, it was the religious argument that
"science isn't trying to grab your Bible and burn it, and you *can*
accept evolution and still be a Christian" that won them over.
None of the arguments over "scientific evidence for evolution" or
"religion is for deluded retards!!" or "creationists are lying scum",
ever had any noticeable effect.
I should point out, though, that I myself personally make no effort
whatsoever to "convert" anyone. The payoff simply isn't worth the
effort.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> You are making some false assumptions here.
You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
any religious opinion that differs from his.
No different from the fundies. (shrug)
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Something an angry person would say who cannot actually address (much
less refute) what was said.
Ray
snex
> On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You are making some false assumptions here.
>
> You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> No different from the fundies. (shrug)
poor reverend flank still doenst understand that creationism is not
some isolated little island of irrationality that, once gone, will
usher in a new utopia where everybody accepts science and works to
further its progress. creationism is merely a SYMPTOM of the deeper
problem of faith in general.
while VBM's own personal faith may be harmless, it is simply not
possible to address creationism and other irrationalities without
hacking away at their common faulty foundation - faith.
VBM
Really, no place? Here are some quotes you might want to consider. Tell me
where you think they come from:
There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind
evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God,
especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people
have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution.
Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery
of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one
within evolution.
While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is
frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God
in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in
the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in
the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to
observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.
>
> no doubt you see this as "hostility," but what it really is is
> ensuring that error is eliminated. you want to insist that you be
> given an exception when using your error-ridden tools, and you throw a
> fit when people tell you that it doesnt work that way. you are an
> example of the hypocrites jesus preached about, who refuses to remove
> the log in his own eye before telling others about the mote in their
> own. if you cannot rid yourself of error-ridden tools, then you should
> not presume to tell others to rid themselves of theirs.
No, I don't throw a fit at all. I have no problem at all with you
disagreeing with my worldview and finding it entirely unconvincing. What I
do object to is the complete lack of personal respect in your tone.
Disagree with me all you like, but be respectful.
I am not telling anyone to do anything other than telling my fellow
Christians keep in mind the true definition of science (which is not an
article of faith issue) and stop seeking to force science to be something
other than it is.
VBM
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0734e62-8ef6-4e38...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > You are making some false assumptions here.
>
>
> You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> No different from the fundies. (shrug)
Oh, that explains a lot. I always tend to assume the best, and so am
sometimes caught off-guard by that type of reaction.
Thanks!
VBM
> On Jan 23, 1:32 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
> > Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> > someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
acceptance of
> > the supernatural as part of reality.
> >
> > Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> > they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> > this origins debate?
>
>
> In my 25-plus years of fighting creationists, I've seen roughly nine
> or ten people be converted from fundamentalist creationism to
> something else (usually theistic evolution).
>
> In *every case*, every single one, it was the religious argument that
> "science isn't trying to grab your Bible and burn it, and you *can*
> accept evolution and still be a Christian" that won them over.
All good approaches.
>
> None of the arguments over "scientific evidence for evolution" or
> "religion is for deluded retards!!" or "creationists are lying scum",
> ever had any noticeable effect.
EXACTLY!!!!
>
> I should point out, though, that I myself personally make no effort
> whatsoever to "convert" anyone. The payoff simply isn't worth the
> effort.
Every little bit, added to what you got, is a little bit more. P.G.
Wodehouse.
But I agree with that sentiment in general.
Mark VandeWettering
Actually, I would almost certainly conclude that I had been mistaken, and
that he was not really dead, or that some natural process was at work that
I didn't understand. I think leaping to the conclusion that the events
can _only_ or even _is best_ explained by some unobserved supernatural
agency is madness.
> But it is not something that the discipline of science could confirm or deny,
So why bother believing it?
> other than confirming the facts present and observable. Again, science, as
> a methodological naturalistic discipline, could not posit that the
> explanation of the data was that a supernatural event occurred. At least,
> that is what scientists have told me over and over.
>
>> yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
>> was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
>> arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
>> through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
>> actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
>> supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
>> witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?
>
> No, an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am right
> now, which is entirely convinced.
But since no possible observation would make you *less sure*, that
hardly counts for anything, does it?
> Since this is a faith issue for me, I do
> not need the actual evidence of that event to believe it. But, if there was
> hard and fast evidence that that particular event did NOT happen (let's say
> I could travel back in time and see the actual body of Jesus rot away to
> nothing), then I would no longer believe it.
So, absent time travel, you can't think of anything which might shake
your faith?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> particular reading of Scripture
A particular reading that their preacher, their parents, and likely
all their friends accept as the proper way to read scripture.
> - There is nothing inherently atheistic about evolution (although it is
> arguments like those that predominate this forum that make these arguments
> more and more difficult).
> - Explain why the text of Genesis 1 and 2 is better read figuratively than
> literally, based on a cultural/historical analysis
Actually, I kind of agree with fundamentalists with respect to Genesis.
Without a _literal_ Fall, Christ's redemption of mankind on the cross makes
no sense whatsoever. Mind you, it doesn't really make much sense anyway,
but it makes even less so without the Fall.
> -Use the example of geocentrism, etc.
Mark
snex
arguments by authority are not convincing.
i respect positions that have earned respect by not being based on
utter bullshit.
VBM
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfpfj56.1...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
Exactly, and that is because your standard is entirely "scientitfic" in that
way. Science can't go there, either. And, if you have adopted that
worldview, then I agree you would have to deny the evidence before your eyes
or come to a different conclusion about some underlying fact to bring it
back in line with that worldview.
> > But it is not something that the discipline of science could confirm or
deny,
>
> So why bother believing it?
That question is predicated on the worldview that only that which can be
confirmed by science should be believed. I have a different worldview, as
you know.
> > other than confirming the facts present and observable. Again, science,
as
> > a methodological naturalistic discipline, could not posit that the
> > explanation of the data was that a supernatural event occurred. At
least,
> > that is what scientists have told me over and over.
> >
> >> yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
> >> was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
> >> arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
> >> through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
> >> actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
> >> supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
> >> witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?
> >
> > No, an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am
right
> > now, which is entirely convinced.
>
> But since no possible observation would make you *less sure*, that
> hardly counts for anything, does it?
Oh, sure it would. If I saw absolutely convincing evidence that the
resurrection did NOT occur, then I would no longer believe that it did
occur. I would then re-examine my faith to see whether it could still hold
without that event, and if not, I would likely conclude that my subjective
experience has led me astray. But the level of my faith assurance at the
moment is such that it would take pretty convincing evidence. (oh, I see I
already said that below, sorry).
> > Since this is a faith issue for me, I do
> > not need the actual evidence of that event to believe it. But, if there
was
> > hard and fast evidence that that particular event did NOT happen (let's
say
> > I could travel back in time and see the actual body of Jesus rot away to
> > nothing), then I would no longer believe it.
>
> So, absent time travel, you can't think of anything which might shake
> your faith?
hmmm, I would have to think about it, but off-hand I can't think of anything
in particular.
coaster
wrote:
> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:197ef4fd-b6ef-4189...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 12:32 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> > > someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
> acceptance of
> > > the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> > > Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> > > they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> > > this origins debate?
>
> > > believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to
> the
> > > creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>
> > > Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
> engage
> > > in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>
> > (something which I highly recommend) then the most obvious course
> > would be to attack that person's beliefs (or belief system) based on
> > the legality of physics. But you recognize this as 'obvious' in some
> > way and so want to go beyond that. Ok, fine. But I dont' think there
> > is much beyond that... at least not involving science or logic.
> > Pretty much all you would have left is the philosophical rant; "What
> > if you're wrong?". "What if you've wasted your time believe in this
> > nonsense?". Your only course at that point is to try to get them to
> > at least challenge their beliefs thus demonstrating that what defines
> > logic as truth-seeking is scrutiny. Get them to see that science is,
> > not only humble, but the MOST humble of all forms of rationalization
> > and that uncertainty leads to more truth than certainty. You may
> > still hit a brick wall when they finally get around to admitting that
> > FAITH certain for a reason. But then you can get into some "warm
> > blanket" metaphor or something.
>
> But I am not asking you to attempt to change their worldview. That is the
> problem here. Everyone is attempting to change people's worldview rather
> than change their thoughts on the issue of evolution, the age of the
> throughout the TO site, there are many statements that evolution and an old
> earth, etc, are perfectly compatible with a Christian worldview. So, why is
> the ONLY approach here nowadays (as opposed to the old days) to simply
> attack the worldview?
Changing a creationist's world view and changing their opinion on
evolution seems to me to be the same thing. Also why take offense to
the word "attack"? Lord knows I never aim to be polite but what word
would have been less offensive yet still as accurate? Or is mere idea
of questioning faith that disturbs you?
> Do you not know how many millions of Christians accept all the same things
> you do about things like evolution? There is a HUGE, HUGE efficacy to
> presenting this option to those remaining Christians who insist on young
> earth creationism and who deny evolution. One of the purposes of TO in the
> first place is to argue against those viewpoints so that they don't become
> politically and socially mandated.
I am completely aware of the fact many theists (Christians and others)
understand science well enough to accept natural selection as the best
and only viable explanation for the origin of species. HOWEVER let's
not be apologetic about it. Let's correct their facts but also, at
the same time, point out the root of their misunderstanding. Is it
not Christianity that teaches; give a man a fish feed him for a day,
teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime? Even theists who
accept the observed and verifiable facts of natural selection still
lack a crucial and critical perspective on logic. Their position
should always ALWAYS boil down to: "Even though I agree with science
ENTIRELY I still have faith that God (or gods) exists in some
completely unverifiable way". That is the only tenable position on
faith that exists because it is only one that explicitly separates
faith and reason... something, I'm sure you'll agree, most theists
(even the good ones) do NOT do.
> You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting the
> wrong battle.
I don't agree. I don't think you can correct facts if you're not also
going to teach reason. You're proposing a compromise which in my
humble opinion enhances that person's already poor understanding about
why we know what we know and how we go about learning more.
Ernest Major
VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> writes
The story of the Fall can be read as an allegory to the effect that
humans are inherently sinful. So, I don't agree that a literal Fall
helps to make redemption by Christ's sacrifice make sense.
>
>> -Use the example of geocentrism, etc.
>
> Mark
>
--
alias Ernest Major
VBM
"coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8c61282-b741-4547...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Actually, no, but I get the idea. :0)
>Even theists who
> accept the observed and verifiable facts of natural selection still
> lack a crucial and critical perspective on logic. Their position
> should always ALWAYS boil down to: "Even though I agree with science
> ENTIRELY I still have faith that God (or gods) exists in some
> completely unverifiable way". That is the only tenable position on
> faith that exists because it is only one that explicitly separates
> faith and reason... something, I'm sure you'll agree, most theists
> (even the good ones) do NOT do.
It is what I do, and what most of the TE's that I know do as well.
> > You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting
the
> > wrong battle.
>
> I don't agree. I don't think you can correct facts if you're not also
> going to teach reason. You're proposing a compromise which in my
> humble opinion enhances that person's already poor understanding about
> why we know what we know and how we go about learning more.
But is the goal of this group to argue for an atheistic worldview, or to
argue for the validity of evolution and other scientific propositions
regarding origins? The existence of so many TE's like myself make it clear
that it need not be one or the other, that simply affirms the creationist
fallacy that evolution = atheism.
Ray Martinez
> On Jan 23, 5:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You are making some false assumptions here.
>
> > You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> > long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> > intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> > any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> > No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>
> poor reverend flank still doenst understand that creationism is not
> some isolated little island of irrationality that, once gone, will
> usher in a new utopia where everybody accepts science and works to
> further its progress. creationism is merely a SYMPTOM of the deeper
> problem of faith in general.
>
Flank the Crank is angry that Snex is one of the few prominent
evolutionist members who does not go along with the intelligence
insulting pro-"Christian"-evolutionist agenda of the Talk Origins
Usenet. Snex often times points out the gross illogic of CEism. He
does not seem to understand that his peers are attempting to corrupt
the Bible and Christianity by making evolution appear friendly to
their enemy. Snex routinely frustrates this almost uniform "double
agent" attack on Christianity and the Bible. Snex, for the most part,
is an honest Atheist-evolutionist, unlike his peers here at the Talk
Origins Usenet. Of course I fully realize that Snex will probably have
to produce some type of post which condemns myself. The same, if it
occurs, will be ad hoc.
> while VBM's own personal faith may be harmless....SNIP
Snex is absolutely correct: VBMs faith is toothless and non-Biblical
having bowed to Darwin and its Atheist handlers. Evidence like this
makes me conclude that VBM is not a real Christian.
> ....it is simply not
> possible to address creationism and other irrationalities without
> hacking away at their common faulty foundation - faith.
>
This identifies that the reality and factually based faith of
antievolutionists to be the enemy of evolution; again, Snex is
correct.
VBM is learning that the Atheists will not share preeminence, that
they will not bow or even nod their head to his theistic lunacy.
>
>
>
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> > long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> > intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> > any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> > No different from the fundies. (shrug)
From Snex:
> poor reverend flank still doenst understand
From Ray:
>Flank the Crank is angry
I rest my case. Same bird, different feathers, same squawk. (shrug)
VBM
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gq9KQl4p...@meden.invalid...
Very true. What most forget is exactly how many Christians don't have any
problem about this at all. It is not as if the majority of Christians
accept a figurative reading, and then when confronted with that one, slap
their head and say "wow, I forgot about that bit". 97% of clergy in
Britain do not think there was a literal Adam and Eve, and yet they have no
problem with the "Fall" theologically.
Mark VandeWettering
Then you are left with the problem of a loving, all-knowing God, who
created _inherently_ sinful beings, and then punishing them for being
precisely what he created them to be.
That makes less sense to me than the alternative, but it's essentially
choosing between absurd alternatives, which is why I reject them both.
VBM
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:534cbe69-5904-4b21...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> > > long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> > > intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> > > any religious opinion that differs from his.
> >
> > > No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>
>
>
>
> From Snex:
>
> > poor reverend flank still doenst understand
>
>
> From Ray:
>
> >Flank the Crank is angry
>
>
>
>
> I rest my case. Same bird, different feathers, same squawk. (shrug)
I wonder how snex feels about getting such a ringing endorsement from Ray.
I would not wish that on him, I think he is basically honest, just a tad
angry and, as you say, intolerant.
Ernest Major
I don't see the moral distinction between OT1H creating inherently
sinful beings, and then punishing them, and OTOH creating beings that
you know beforehand will fall, and punishing them for it. At least the
allegorical interpretation gets rid of the concept of inherited guilt.
>
>That makes less sense to me than the alternative, but it's essentially
>choosing between absurd alternatives, which is why I reject them both.
>
>> So, I don't agree that a literal Fall
>> helps to make redemption by Christ's sacrifice make sense.
>>>
>>>> -Use the example of geocentrism, etc.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Garamond Lethe
> VBM wrote:
>> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
>> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
>> acceptance of the supernatural as part of reality.
>>
>> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing
>> why they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in
>> regards to this origins debate?
>>
>> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
>> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to
>> the creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular,
>> etc?
>>
>> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
>> engage in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>>
>>
> The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
> both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
> fatal to their religion.
Let me add my enthusiastic agreement. I have yet to meet a creationist
who had done much study of the history of the Bible, the early Church, or
even of the Bible itself. They have an idea of what's in there, but
there's nothing like sitting down with Pagels or Ehrman to show them what
they consider to be Christianity would have been unrecognizable to Paul.
If there's a spark of curiosity, then fanning that is sufficient. If
there isn't curiosity, then I think your time is better spent elsewhere.
>
> It seems to me that the first step there is to demonstrate that they
> have already abandoned it, since they believe (one would hope) that the
> earth is a sphere, that it goes around the sun, and so on. If you can
> accept the passages that claim a flat earth, solid sky, immobile earth,
> etc., as non-literal, what's to keep you from accepting a 6-day creation
> of separate kinds and a global flood as non-literal? When these facts
> became accepted by science, believers discovered that they'd been
> reading the bible wrong. Same with deep time and evolution.
>
> One could also try a philosophical approach. Taking the old testament
> literally reveals a small, limited, petty god who doesn't closely
> resemble what (again, one would hope) Christians believe in. Punishment
> of unborn generations for something a remote ancestor did? Death of all
> life on earth, including babies, for the sins of some humans? It just
> doesn't make sense, and it's immoral to boot. Punishment should be of
> the guilty, and the punishment should fit the crime.
>
> But the fact is that committed creationists have answers for all that.
> The answers don't make sense, but they don't have to. In order to make
> any progress you would have to convince them that their religion doesn't
> depend on creationism and biblical literalism (as currently
> interpreted). Perhaps you should determine what their religion does
> depend on. If god came to you in a vision and told you the scientists
> were right, forget the six-day stuff, it was always a metaphorical
> account, would you still have faith? If so, what's the problem with
> accepting science?
snex
wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:534cbe69-5904-4b21...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
ive said before that ray suffers from "broken clock syndrome." he
essentially spouts random nonsense, which, by the nature of chance
alone, has to be correct once in a while.
snex
> > > You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> > > long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> > > intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> > > any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> > > No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>
> From Snex:
>
> > poor reverend flank still doenst understand
>
> From Ray:
>
> >Flank the Crank is angry
>
> I rest my case. Same bird, different feathers, same squawk. (shrug)
yes lenny, everybody who disagrees with you is a fundy. you keep on
believing whatever it takes to avoid having to deal with my actual
arguments.
(the objective reader will notice that where i call flank *wrong* and
go on to demonstrate why i think so, ray simply calls him *angry,* as
if this somehow demonstrates anything.)
VBM
"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4797de35$0$32617$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:06:29 +0000, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > VBM wrote:
> >> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> >> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
> >> acceptance of the supernatural as part of reality.
> >>
> >> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing
> >> why they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in
> >> regards to this origins debate?
> >>
> >> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> >> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to
> >> the creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular,
> >> etc?
> >>
> >> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
> >> engage in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
> >>
> >>
> > The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
> > both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
> > fatal to their religion.
>
> Let me add my enthusiastic agreement. I have yet to meet a creationist
> who had done much study of the history of the Bible, the early Church, or
> even of the Bible itself. They have an idea of what's in there, but
> there's nothing like sitting down with Pagels or Ehrman to show them what
> they consider to be Christianity would have been unrecognizable to Paul.
>
> If there's a spark of curiosity, then fanning that is sufficient. If
> there isn't curiosity, then I think your time is better spent elsewhere.
I agree entirely. I have read both of them, but what I find most convincing
on the subject is the study of ANE cultures and literature. There is just
no way the ancient Israelites would have read the Genesis 1 and 2 text as
strict literal historical narrative. And if they wouldn't have, why should
we?
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:p%Nlj.440$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > VBM wrote:
> > > Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> > > someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
> acceptance of
> > > the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> > > Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> > > they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> > > this origins debate?
>
> > > In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> > > believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to
> the
> > > creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>
> > > Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
> engage
> > > in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>
> > The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
> > both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
> > fatal to their religion.
>
> > have already abandoned it, since they believe (one would hope) that the
> > earth is a sphere, that it goes around the sun, and so on. If you can
> > accept the passages that claim a flat earth, solid sky, immobile earth,
> > etc., as non-literal, what's to keep you from accepting a 6-day creation
> > of separate kinds and a global flood as non-literal? When these facts
> > became accepted by science, believers discovered that they'd been
> > reading the bible wrong. Same with deep time and evolution.
>
> > One could also try a philosophical approach. Taking the old testament
> > literally reveals a small, limited, petty god who doesn't closely
> > resemble what (again, one would hope) Christians believe in. Punishment
> > of unborn generations for something a remote ancestor did? Death of all
> > life on earth, including babies, for the sins of some humans? It just
> > doesn't make sense, and it's immoral to boot. Punishment should be of
> > the guilty, and the punishment should fit the crime.
>
> > But the fact is that committed creationists have answers for all that.
> > The answers don't make sense, but they don't have to. In order to make
> > any progress you would have to convince them that their religion doesn't
> > depend on creationism and biblical literalism (as currently
> > interpreted). Perhaps you should determine what their religion does
> > depend on. If god came to you in a vision and told you the scientists
> > were right, forget the six-day stuff, it was always a metaphorical
> > account, would you still have faith? If so, what's the problem with
> > accepting science?
>
> pat answers, but I have found that using some of those very arguments, many
> of them will come around! Thanks!
Rather than being negative I also point out that Genesis
provides support for Old Earth, or at least for the existence of
people before Adam and Eve.
I like to ask (as they did in the "Scopes Monkey Trial") where
Cain's wife came from, and who Cain was afraid would kill
him after God condemned him to wander the earth. Gen 4.
Also in Gen 6:20 - 7:03 it states first that Noah took two pairs
of every bird and then seven pairs. This could not have been
missed by the authors, and so I like to argue that it was
intentionally left so future readers would understand that the
story should not be read literally.
snex
> In message <slrnfpfm83.1vlm.wetter...@fishtank.brainwagon.org>, Mark
> VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On 2008-01-23, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <slrnfpfjdk.1vlm.wetter...@fishtank.brainwagon.org>, Mark
> >> VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> writes
> >>>On 2008-01-23, VBM <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Tiny Bulcher" <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:pcqdnQFmpoeZXQra...@bt.com...
> >>>>> Thus cwaeth VBM :
> >>>>> >news:fvKdnes_LKK_Mgra...@bt.com...
> >>>>> >> Thus cwaeth VBM :
the major distinction i can see is that one interpretation is the
plainly obvious meaning the text intends to convey to any casual
reader of genesis, whereas the other interpretation is one that was
only applied after it was discovered through science that the first
interpretation, if taken literally, is false.
<snip>
Sonofagunzel
Ray agrees with snex. QED.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 23, 3:16 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 5:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You are making some false assumptions here.
>>> You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
>>> long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
>>> intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
>>> any religious opinion that differs from his.
>>> No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>> poor reverend flank still doenst understand that creationism is not
>> some isolated little island of irrationality that, once gone, will
>> usher in a new utopia where everybody accepts science and works to
>> further its progress. creationism is merely a SYMPTOM of the deeper
>> problem of faith in general.
>>
>
> Flank the Crank is angry that Snex is one of the few prominent
> evolutionist members who does not go along with the intelligence
> insulting pro-"Christian"-evolutionist agenda of the Talk Origins
> Usenet.
Ray, where do you get the idea that TO has an "agenda"? Also, where do
you get the idea that Theistic Evolution is any more "intelligence
insulting" than your own claims. At least Theistic Evolution accepts
science and evidence, rather than trying to ignore all evidence contrary
to one's beliefs.
> Snex often times points out the gross illogic of CEism.
Theistic evolution is a religious belief, not a logical position. Your
own illogical claims are also pointed out.
> He
> does not seem to understand that his peers are attempting to corrupt
> the Bible and Christianity by making evolution appear friendly to
> their enemy.
Perhaps he doesn't "understand" this because it's simply not true.
Evolution is not the enemy of the Bible, or Christianity. It's sad that
Ray can only see opponents as enemies. Science is not either friendly,
or hostile to religion. Religion is irrelevant to science.
> Snex routinely frustrates this almost uniform "double
> agent" attack on Christianity and the Bible.
There are no such "attacks". Snex has his opinion, and is entitled to
it, that doesn't mean he is correct.
> Snex, for the most part,
> is an honest Atheist-evolutionist, unlike his peers here at the Talk
> Origins Usenet. Of course I fully realize that Snex will probably have
> to produce some type of post which condemns myself. The same, if it
> occurs, will be ad hoc.
Another term that Ray apparently does not understand. Ray, don't you
find it ironic that you are agreeing with an atheist, and condemning a
Christian?
>
>> while VBM's own personal faith may be harmless....SNIP
>
> Snex is absolutely correct: VBMs faith is toothless and non-Biblical
> having bowed to Darwin and its Atheist handlers.
VBM shows no sign of "bowing" to Darwin, or any atheist. Ray has on
several occasions shown he himself has little or no faith in God, or the
teachings of Christ.
> Evidence like this
> makes me conclude that VBM is not a real Christian.
Your own false assumptions are not evidence.
>
>> ....it is simply not
>> possible to address creationism and other irrationalities without
>> hacking away at their common faulty foundation - faith.
>>
>
> This identifies that the reality and factually based faith of
> antievolutionists to be the enemy of evolution; again, Snex is
> correct.
"Factually based faith" is an oxymoron. Faith is belief without
evidence. Anti-evolutionists have given up any faith for a comforting
falsehood. Holding onto a falsehood in defiance of the evidence is
just being dishonest. Dishonesty is the enemy of true faith, and Ray's
form of hostility, hatred, and egotistical pride is the enemy of
Christianity.
>
> VBM is learning that the Atheists will not share preeminence, that
> they will not bow or even nod their head to his theistic lunacy.
Atheists don't have to "bow" to anyone's theistic beliefs. Likewise
those of us who believe have no need to "bow" toward any atheistic
pronouncements. Acceptance of science is not atheistic, nor is science
any support to atheism.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 23, 3:01 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
snip
>> You know, I am coming to the conclusion that you may be the one who has
>> single-handedly reduced this entire forum to alt-atheism. If I was not a
>> Christian, you would drive me to that level of argument as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Something an angry person would say who cannot actually address (much
> less refute) what was said.
Ray, you would know what angry people say, as your posts are full of
anger and hatred. It's a shame you can't actually show any anger in
VBM's statement.
DJT
Free Lunch
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote in
<4797ed65$0$85779$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>snex wrote:
>
>> the major distinction i can see is that one interpretation is the
>> plainly obvious meaning the text intends to convey to any casual reader
>> of genesis, whereas the other interpretation is one that was only
>> applied after it was discovered through science that the first
>> interpretation, if taken literally, is false.
>
>literally. The first people telling each other that story must have been
>aware it was metaphorical.
Apparently they were less gullible than certain more recent humans.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 23, 1:06 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> VBM wrote:
>>> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
>>> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
>>> the supernatural as part of reality.
>>> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
>>> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
>>> this origins debate?
>>> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
>>> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>>> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
>>> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>> The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
>> both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
>> fatal to their religion.
>>
>
> have and maintain preeminence over the textual evidence of the Bible
> in the public sphere,
Again, Ray, you try to make a distinction between "Darwinian" science
and general science, when there is none. There is no "scientific
literalism". Scientific concepts and ideas must be supported by
evidence. Biblical claims do not, and are not. That is why Western
Culture has chose to give facts preeminence over personal
interpretations of the Bible when judging the worth of ideas.
>AND it is a demand for Biblical worldviewists to
> acknowledge this preeminence.
It's the 21st Century Ray. If you want to turn the clock back to the
Dark Ages, that's your own problem. "Biblical Worldviewists" can do
whatever they want, but don't expect to get the same kind of respect
that scientific "worldviewists" receive.
> Harshman's comment rightly recognizes
> (by unspoken presupposition) that only one voice can occupy the throne
> of preeminence because neo-Darwinian "science" and the Bible cannot
> both be literally true at the same time.
Which is why most honest and rational Christians accept the Bible's
creation stories as legendary, not "literally true". To demand that
legendary stories be "literally true" ignores the purpose and meaning of
those stories.
> One group must relinquish its
> claim.
As far as Western Culture is concerned, that was done about 500 years
ago. Your side lost.
>
> "There is nothing new under the sun."
>
> This is as old as Antiochus Epiphanes ("God with us") telling the Jews
> that they could worship as they please as long as they bowed to him
> first (preeminence).
Again, science is not asking religion to "bow" to it. Science does it's
own thing, and considers religious beliefs to be irrelevant. What Ray
objects to is that scientists won't "bow" to his particular, and
peculiar interpretation of the Bible.
>
> We will never bow to Harshman and what he represents (scientism) -
> never.
I doubt that Dr. Harshman wants you to "bow" to him. Science also
doesn't care if you "bow" to it or not. You can either accept the
findings of science, or reject them. If you wish to believe that the
Bible is literally true, that's your own business. It's when you try to
claim that this belief has the same factual backing as a scientific
theory, you are wrong.
You are requiring that science and Dr. Harshman "bow" to your own
beliefs, which cannot be supported by any evidence worthy of the name.
You can't be content with having faith in your beliefs, you expect
others to accept them on flimsy "textual evidence" and illogical
constructs such as "design corresponds to an invisible designer".
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP Harshman's ridiculous "examples" of Biblical literalism
> (explained by his Atheism), "examples" that anyone can do to ANY
> text....
Note that Ray hasn't offered any counter examples, or given any reason
to reject Dr. Harshman's points. He simply employs ad hominem and
dismisses them as "ridiculous" without any support.
DJT
>
coaster
That's good then! It delights me to hear it. But I have to say that
in my experience you are not in the majority.
> > > You guys are fighting the wrong battle, as much as the YEC is fighting
> the
> > > wrong battle.
>
> > I don't agree. I don't think you can correct facts if you're not also
> > going to teach reason. You're proposing a compromise which in my
> > humble opinion enhances that person's already poor understanding about
> > why we know what we know and how we go about learning more.
>
> But is the goal of this group to argue for an atheistic worldview, or to
> argue for the validity of evolution and other scientific propositions
> regarding origins? The existence of so many TE's like myself make it clear
> that it need not be one or the other, that simply affirms the creationist
> fallacy that evolution = atheism.
I honestly don't know what the goal of this group is, all I can do is
express my opinion on the topic at hand. My opinion is that we should
Not argue an atheistic world view for the sake of transforming how
people think. It doesn't work that way anyway. But nor should we
limit our arguments to the mere facts of nature. We have to attack
the root of the misunderstanding which lies at the divide between
logic and faith. Yes, you're going to tread on religion which is an
offensive thing. But until a person actually understands what it is
they're doing wrong, why logic and faith are opposites, such
misunderstandings are unavoidable and, in fact, predictable.
Sonofagunzel
wrote:
> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
> the supernatural as part of reality.
>
> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
> this origins debate?
>
> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>
> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
My suggestion:
1. some believe what they believe through ignorance: the first step
must always be to reduce ignorance: misconceptions about what
evolution is, misconceptions about what the evidence shows and why and
how much of it there really is, misconceptions about how scientists
work, misconceptions about the real and brutal checks and balances in
science, misconceptions about the effort and care that goes into
science, and misconceptions about what science can and cannot talk
about. But the person has to *want* to learn. I think one of the
barriers to learning is that things are taught as if they are true:
when you trying to reduce ignorance, don't present as right, present
it as you giving them a better understanding of what "the other side"
says and why they say that - while explicitly allowing the person
their own space to assess whether or they agree. I have managed to
convince even the staunchest YEC that I know that evolution and old
earth are ideas that are both internally consistent and consistent
with the evidence. What I couldn't do, however, was convince them
that it was *correct*, to the exclusion of YEC, but I'll get there
eventually.
2. release their theological constraints: YECs mistrust their
intellect and they mistrust their ability to reason from evidence. A
key is to convince them that God gave them their intellect, and God
created the world, and God created the Bible, and that therefore they
must be consistent. Point them to passages previously interpreted as
geocentric. Point them to passages in Genesis that support the view
that the references to time therein may not have the meaning we
ascribe as time today. But again, don't present as right, present it
as a better understanding of what the other side say.
3. deal in specifics. If they believe there is scientific evidence
for creation, show them what scientific evidence looks like (ie a peer
reviewed paper) and ask them to give you a creationist scientific
paper, and discuss it with them in detail. Don't get sidetracked by
other issues, or by allegations of hidden motives, focus closely on
showing why you disagree with that evidence. Again, not presenting it
the criticisms as right, but has education on the point of view of
others.
4. deal in the differences between their view and the scientific
view. For example, force them to isolate a prediction about what the
evidence would show if they were right and mainstream science wrong.
For example, ask them to predict how a global flood would show up in
evidence today: what would a flood-created fossil record look like?
Then ask them to predict what the fossil record would look like if
evolution were true. Then give them specific evidence about what it
does look like.
Of course, there will always be those who are stubbornly pig-ignorant,
who don't want to learn or think. For these people, being certain is
better than being right. These are the sorts that bother coming on
websites and newsgroups, but they are the minority.
snex
ironically, this is the exact same "argument" ray levels at his
critics.
snex
> snex wrote:
> > the major distinction i can see is that one interpretation is the
> > plainly obvious meaning the text intends to convey to any casual reader
> > of genesis, whereas the other interpretation is one that was only
> > applied after it was discovered through science that the first
> > interpretation, if taken literally, is false.
>
> literally. The first people telling each other that story must have been
> aware it was metaphorical.
then where did the idea that it was meant to be taken literally come
from? even the most intelligent people throughout known history took
genesis literally up until *science* gave us an old earth.
John Harshman
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c7db5184-a98f-43ff...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
>>>> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview"
> acceptance of
>>>> the supernatural as part of reality.
>>>> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing
> why
>>>> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards
> to
>>>> this origins debate?
>>>> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason
> to
>>>> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make
> to the
>>>> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular,
> etc?
>>>> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still
> engage
>>>> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>>> both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
>>> fatal to their religion.
>>>
>> This comment is a demand for neo-Darwinian scientific literalism to
>> have and maintain preeminence over the textual evidence of the Bible
>> acknowledge this preeminence. Harshman's comment rightly recognizes
>> (by unspoken presupposition) that only one voice can occupy the throne
>> of preeminence because neo-Darwinian "science" and the Bible cannot
>> claim.
>>
>> "There is nothing new under the sun."
>>
>> This is as old as Antiochus Epiphanes ("God with us") telling the Jews
>> that they could worship as they please as long as they bowed to him
>> first (preeminence).
>>
>> never.
>>
>
> You know, I am coming to the conclusion that you may be the one who has
> single-handedly reduced this entire forum to alt-atheism. If I was not a
> Christian, you would drive me to that level of argument as well.
>
>
is futile. Ray is actually crazy; nothing's going to convince him of
anything he doesn't already have a fanatical belief in.
John Harshman
> On Jan 23, 1:06 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> VBM wrote:
>>> Let's say you were talking to a Christian who was also a creationist,
>>> someone who you knew was not going to change their "worldview" acceptance of
>>> the supernatural as part of reality.
>>> Now, short of asking them to abandon this worldview, or even arguing why
>>> they should do so, what would you want to convince them of in regards to
>>> this origins debate?
>>> In other words, OTHER THAN arguments that there is no logical reason to
>>> believe in the supernatural, what are the best arguments we can make to the
>>> creationist regarding science in general, evolution in particular, etc?
>>> Kinda pretend you wanted to respect their religious faith, but still engage
>>> in this dialogue. What would be our best approach?
>> The first obstacle is biblical literalism. You have to convince them
>> both that it's logically untenable and that abandoning it should not be
>> fatal to their religion.
>>
>
> This comment is a demand for neo-Darwinian scientific literalism to
> have and maintain preeminence over the textual evidence of the Bible
> in the public sphere, AND it is a demand for Biblical worldviewists to
> acknowledge this preeminence.
Not neo-Darwinian, per se. Scientific. No science can accept revelation
as a source of knowledge. It isn't science if it does. Now I suspect
that Ray is neither a flat-earther nor a geocentrist despite the fact
that the bible explicitly makes these claims. Ray has managed to
reinterpret scripture so it agrees with empirical evidence -- that is,
he accepts the primacy of science in geography and astronomy. So why not
elsewhere?
> Harshman's comment rightly recognizes
> (by unspoken presupposition) that only one voice can occupy the throne
> of preeminence because neo-Darwinian "science" and the Bible cannot
> both be literally true at the same time. One group must relinquish its
> claim.
Not just neo-Darwinian science; all science. The bible says all kinds of
things that aren't true. We would have to abandon much of what we know
of geography, geology, astronomy, biology, and physics in order to
comply with real biblical literalism. Not even Ray wants that.
> "There is nothing new under the sun."
>
> This is as old as Antiochus Epiphanes ("God with us") telling the Jews
> that they could worship as they please as long as they bowed to him
> first (preeminence).
>
> We will never bow to Harshman and what he represents (scientism) -
> never.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP Harshman's ridiculous "examples" of Biblical literalism
> (explained by his Atheism), "examples" that anyone can do to ANY
> text....
As predicted, Ray now claims that a literal interpretation of the bible
shows the earth to be round and moving. You can be a biblical literalist
and accept anything you like, as long as you read it the right way. Why
not evolution too?
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> VBM wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is John blind to the fact that his own rhetoric could condemn himself
if adopted by an opponent?
Ray
Garamond Lethe
> On Jan 23, 7:44 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>> > the major distinction i can see is that one interpretation is the
>> > plainly obvious meaning the text intends to convey to any casual
>> > reader of genesis, whereas the other interpretation is one that was
>> > only applied after it was discovered through science that the first
>> > interpretation, if taken literally, is false.
>>
>> I don't think the creation story in Genesis was *ever* meant to be
>> taken literally. The first people telling each other that story must
>> have been aware it was metaphorical.
>
> then where did the idea that it was meant to be taken literally come
> from?
I picked up a copy of Ronald Numbers' _The Creationists_ over the
holidays, but I yet to get around to reading it. It looks as if it would
answer your question in depth in just the first few chapters.
> even the most intelligent people throughout known history took
> genesis literally up until *science* gave us an old earth.
I think Augustine is a sufficient counterexample. Poking around
wikipedia shows Irenaeus, Origen, and Justin Martyr taking allegorical
views of Genesis as well. Add to that Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai,
Maimonides, Nahmanides, etc.
snex
are you asserting that these men didnt think that, for example,
abraham was a real individual? taking allegorical views is not the
same thing as agreeing that the literal view is false or somehow an
incorrect interpretation.
Mr D.
news:13pfj75...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c0734e62-8ef6-4e38...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > You are making some false assumptions here.
>>
>>
>> You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
>> long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
>> intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
>> any religious opinion that differs from his.
>>
>> No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>
> sometimes caught off-guard by that type of reaction.
>
You know, folks, I'm getting a really strong *troll-smell* from this
character...
M.
Mr D.
>
> There isn't any possible way to reason someone out of a faith-based view.
> They have to work their own way out of it. All we can do is point out to
> bystanders why we think their view is wrong, ridiculous and harmful.
> Attempting to 'convert' the creationist is a waste of our time and energy.
Not quite true, if I may say so. You can't convert them, true -- but you
sure as hell can get them to shut up and go home and keep quiet and do
nothing. We have millions of deluded racists in the same position: we've
taught them to keep their heads down for fear of the substantiated ridicule
that will get heaped upon them if they present their counter-rational filth
in public or expect it to influence public policy. So it will be with
faith-heads who believe things so sheerly mad -- virgin birth, miracles,
resurrection, ascension, assumption, etc -- that if they professed such
beliefs outside of the padded cell of ancient superstition, they'd be
*certified*: we must teach them to keep their heads down for fear of the
substantiated ridicule that will get heaped upon them if they present their
counter-rational filth in public or expect it to influence public policy...
M.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(oh, who cares what Ray wrote)
Why on earth do any of you even waste your time trying to argue
logically with this doofus?
All he's good for is to poke with a stick once in a while so he can
howl madly, and demonstrate to everyone else just how nutty
creationists really are. (shrug)
Come on, Ray --- howl for me again . . . . .
By the way, Ray, don't you have a, uh, scientific paper that you are
supposed to be working on . . . . ?
(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA HA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jan 23, 6:15 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You are wasting your time with snex. Although an atheist, snex has
> > > > long ago turned into the very thing he is fighting. He's just another
> > > > intolerant judgemental evangelical prick who can't stand anyone having
> > > > any religious opinion that differs from his.
>
> > > > No different from the fundies. (shrug)
>
> > From Snex:
>
> > > poor reverend flank still doenst understand
>
> > From Ray:
>
> > >Flank the Crank is angry
>
> > I rest my case. Same bird, different feathers, same squawk. (shrug)
>
> yes lenny, everybody who disagrees with you is a fundy. you keep on
> believing whatever it takes to avoid having to deal with my actual
> arguments.
>
> (the objective reader will notice that where i call flank *wrong* and
> go on to demonstrate why i think so, ray simply calls him *angry,* as
> if this somehow demonstrates anything.)
Gee, snex, it's pretty easy to get YOU to howl madly, too. Just like
the fundies.
(picks up stick and pokes snex)
Howl for me again, snex.
Like I said, I'm just here for the entertainment value . . . . .
Mr D.
>
> No, it is not, I have done it often. Not to reason them out of
> "faith-based" views, per se, since I am a faith-based person myself, but
> to
> reason them away from a YEC position, one dangerous to science and
> society.
>
In other words: get them off heroin and on to methadone. Free them from an
addiction to something 'dangerous to science and society', and get them
addicted to some other variety of crap that's *slightly less* 'dangerous to
science and society'...
*Big fucking deal*.
M.
Garamond Lethe
I'm asserting exactly that.
"What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second
and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence
of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a
sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in
Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this
garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit
with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way,
that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken
from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the
evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can
doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact
materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a
metaphorical way."
Origin, De Principiis IV, 3, 1.