Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Do non creationists

rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:29:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.

I've never been asked what evidence I would expect if Creationism were true. It seems to be a Question unlikely to be asked of most supporters of Evolution, considering that you may actually get an answer :P

I have stated what I think that is MANY times, only to have been met with silence.

If I recall I have created threads on what I would expect.

Would you like me to actually tell you what evidence I would expect if Creationism, or specifically Biblical Literalism were true? I can.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:32:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.

Have you read Genesis? That is creationism and it just never happened.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.

I would expect to see entire solar systems blinking into existence instantaneously, an angel, or a demon, perhaps an unconsumed burning bush, perhaps an elephant headed multi armed individual on occasion. Burning horses that ascend to the heavens. You know, that sort of thing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 7:57:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
Yes, since creationist canon has been in public circulation for thousands of years, and science has made a diligent study of the inception of the universe and the earth -- initially from the cultural position of believing a literal creationist conjecture true.

The more pertinent question is whether people still upholding that belief accurately understand why the majority of developed-world Christians no longer believe the Christian canonical account to be literally true, and how carefully-tested that rejection has been.

That's a rhetorical question, RNJS. We know from numerous polls that the same people who uphold the truth of literal creation doctrine also test lower than the population average in scientific knowledge, understanding and trust.

So that indicates that the deficiency in diligence, knowledge and understanding doesn't reside with the majority of science-literate Christians who've rejected the literalism of their own canon, or with non-Christians who have no reason to accept it, but with those literalist Christians who on the whole, very poorly science-educated.

(I imagine you won't care to review those polls so didn't trouble myself to fish them out, but if you'd like them, please poke.)
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 9:32:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 7:57:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yes, since creationist canon has been in public circulation for thousands of years, and science has made a diligent study of the inception of the universe and the earth -- initially from the cultural position of believing a literal creationist conjecture true.

The more pertinent question is whether people still upholding that belief accurately understand why the majority of developed-world Christians no longer believe the Christian canonical account to be literally true, and how carefully-tested that rejection has been.

Hello, I believe the Christian canonical account to be mostly literally true, and I am well aware that most people reject it because they can't find any sense in it, and therefore think it cannot be true.

That's a rhetorical question, RNJS. We know from numerous polls that the same people who uphold the truth of literal creation doctrine also test lower than the population average in scientific knowledge, understanding and trust.

Well, I must be quite an exception to that rule then.

So that indicates that the deficiency in diligence, knowledge and understanding doesn't reside with the majority of science-literate Christians who've rejected the literalism of their own canon, or with non-Christians who have no reason to accept it, but with those literalist Christians who on the whole, very poorly science-educated.

Want a discussion about Synthetic Biology then? I assume you, who aren't a creationist, would know a lot more than me about it from this.

(I imagine you won't care to review those polls so didn't trouble myself to fish them out, but if you'd like them, please poke.)

*poke*
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 11:28:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:32:17 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/7/2016 7:57:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yes, since creationist canon has been in public circulation for thousands of years, and science has made a diligent study of the inception of the universe and the earth -- initially from the cultural position of believing a literal creationist conjecture true.

The more pertinent question is whether people still upholding that belief accurately understand why the majority of developed-world Christians no longer believe the Christian canonical account to be literally true, and how carefully-tested that rejection has been.

Hello, I believe the Christian canonical account to be mostly literally true, and I am well aware that most people reject it because they can't find any sense in it, and therefore think it cannot be true.

Hi VB. I recall our previous chats, and hope you're well.

The historical reality is that in the 18th and 19th centuries most Christians including scientists of that faith (i.e. nearly all scientists of the day) wanted to believe the Christian literal account true, and spent those centuries trying to prove it -- in fact, various clerically-dominated scientific societies fought hard to dismiss alternatives -- until they eventually accepted it wasn't consistent with the facts.

So now most developed-world Christians don't believe it -- the notable exceptions being the US and developing-world Christianity such as in South America.

Your profile lists you as Anglican, and the official position of the Anglican church is that literal creationism is false while evolution is factually accurate. Indeed, not many years ago, the Anglican church even issued an official apology to the memory of Charles Darwin, so you're opposing the advice of your church's own clergy. [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au...][https://www.theguardian.com...]

So essentially by upholding literal Creationism you're saying you understand science better than scientists, and your church's doctrine better than its own clergy.

That doesn't strike me as being compatible with scholarly diligence and academic honesty, much less science literacy. That your profile lists you as 15 adds nothing to your credibility here.

That's a rhetorical question, RNJS. We know from numerous polls that the same people who uphold the truth of literal creation doctrine also test lower than the population average in scientific knowledge, understanding and trust.
Well, I must be quite an exception to that rule then.
Everyone can plead themselves exceptional, VB. That's what subjectivity does.

So that indicates that the deficiency in diligence, knowledge and understanding doesn't reside with the majority of science-literate Christians who've rejected the literalism of their own canon, or with non-Christians who have no reason to accept it, but with those literalist Christians who on the whole, very poorly science-educated.
Want a discussion about Synthetic Biology then? I assume you, who aren't a creationist, would know a lot more than me about it from this.

A specialist technical knowledge area signifies nothing about overall science literacy. Moreover, in the end, science literacy means nothing about the application of selective personal bias in individual cases, but may help explain why an 150 year outdated belief remains popular over-all in some sectors. But regardless, please see the stats below.

(I imagine you won't care to review those polls so didn't trouble myself to fish them out, but if you'd like them, please poke.)
*poke*
A 2011 sociological study correlates Biblical fundamentalism with literacy in scientific facts and reasoning. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...]. The paper's behind a paywall, but I'll let you read the abstract for yourself. Meanwhile, quoted from the paper elsewhere [https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...]:

The percentage of correct answers on the science exam was strongly (and statistically significantly) affected by religious beliefs. Those who take the Bible as the literal word of God scored 54% correct, those who see the Bible as "inspired by God" got 68% correct, and those who see the Bible as a "book of fables" got 75% correct. This classification explained 13% of the total variation in science literacy. [...] Religious factors are as important for predicting scientific proficiency as are many common sociological characteristics such as race, education, income, and gender [...] The gap between sectarians and fundamentalists and other Americans is quite substantial. Indeed, only education is a stronger predictor of scientific proficiency than are religious factors.

And this from the Pew Forum, 2007, which you can read in full yourself: [http://www.pewforum.org...]

The relationship between faith and science in the United States seems, at least on the surface, to be paradoxical. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans respect science and the benefits it brings to society, such as new technologies and medical treatments. And yet, religious convictions limit many Americans" willingness to accept controversial scientific theories as well as certain types of scientific research [...]

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin"s theory.


So... it's not just that low science literacy makes one vulnerable to outdated religious doctrines. It also seems to be that blind religious faith makes one deaf to scientific evidence. :(

Which I hope might explain why I decline to be tested on synthetic biology by a 15 year-old who won't even listen to his own affiliated church. :p I don't know how we'd test on the subject without testing it VB, but even if you could test better than me on that subject, not only would it not prove what you want it to prove, but the fact that you believe it would, rather proves the opposite. :D

I realise you may not want to accept any of this, but nevertheless hope it may be useful to another member... or to yourself one day later, maybe. :)
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:32:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 11:28:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The historical reality is that in the 18th and 19th centuries most Christians including scientists of that faith (i.e. nearly all scientists of the day) wanted to believe the Christian literal account true, and spent those centuries trying to prove it -- in fact, various clerically-dominated scientific societies fought hard to dismiss alternatives -- until they eventually accepted it wasn't consistent with the facts.

I am interested in this paragraph. Could I trade you a *poke* for a link, source, or book with more info?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 12:49:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:32:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2016 11:28:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The historical reality is that in the 18th and 19th centuries most Christians including scientists of that faith (i.e. nearly all scientists of the day) wanted to believe the Christian literal account true, and spent those centuries trying to prove it -- in fact, various clerically-dominated scientific societies fought hard to dismiss alternatives -- until they eventually accepted it wasn't consistent with the facts.

I am interested in this paragraph. Could I trade you a *poke* for a link, source, or book with more info?

Absolutely and always! :)

I'll need to go through my sources again to winkle out the references, so it'll take a while. (I'm the sort of geek who prefers reading letters and minutes to historical summaries, so I seldom have history reference texts on hand so much as a head full of dim memories of primary sources.)

But the short form informal summary of my understanding is that the Royal Society was the focus of much of the UK's prestigious science output in the 19th century -- sort of the Nature Magazine of its day. But until the mid-late 19th century it was dominated by clergy-scientists, so there was if not a doctrinal agenda, at least a strong doctrinal bias over the Big Issues of the day, like Catastrophist vs Gradualist geological and biological history. Darwin sat on his Origin of Species for years knowing how much official resistance there'd be, and when he eventually published it, there was the Mother of All Bunfights. The eventual result was that the clergy-scientists retreated to their corner muttering, while evolution was broadly accepted for a range of reasons -- not all of which I view as empirically legitimate, but which became so over time.

This is all before genetics or reliable radiometric dating, so really what they were arguing over was more a conjectural paradigm than a fully predictive theory, but if I understand it correctly, what helped to settle it for them was the same thing Darwin appealed to: the correlation of species variation with geography: from that, you get better support for evolution than catastrophism, and that's the beginning of the end for Creationism.

Nowadays of course, there are detailed mechanisms, specific genetic and radiometric predictions and overwhelming genetic, morphological and paleological correlation. But they didn't have all that back then, and I think it's really interesting how they managed to sort their differences out anyway.

I suspect this is a thread for Science, Skep. Please let me know how much detail you want and I'll dig up what I have as time permits.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 2:01:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 12:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:32:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2016 11:28:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The historical reality is that in the 18th and 19th centuries most Christians including scientists of that faith (i.e. nearly all scientists of the day) wanted to believe the Christian literal account true, and spent those centuries trying to prove it -- in fact, various clerically-dominated scientific societies fought hard to dismiss alternatives -- until they eventually accepted it wasn't consistent with the facts.

I am interested in this paragraph. Could I trade you a *poke* for a link, source, or book with more info?

Absolutely and always! :)

I'll need to go through my sources again to winkle out the references, so it'll take a while. (I'm the sort of geek who prefers reading letters and minutes to historical summaries, so I seldom have history reference texts on hand so much as a head full of dim memories of primary sources.)

But the short form informal summary of my understanding is that the Royal Society was the focus of much of the UK's prestigious science output in the 19th century -- sort of the Nature Magazine of its day. But until the mid-late 19th century it was dominated by clergy-scientists, so there was if not a doctrinal agenda, at least a strong doctrinal bias over the Big Issues of the day, like Catastrophist vs Gradualist geological and biological history. Darwin sat on his Origin of Species for years knowing how much official resistance there'd be, and when he eventually published it, there was the Mother of All Bunfights. The eventual result was that the clergy-scientists retreated to their corner muttering, while evolution was broadly accepted for a range of reasons -- not all of which I view as empirically legitimate, but which became so over time.

This is all before genetics or reliable radiometric dating, so really what they were arguing over was more a conjectural paradigm than a fully predictive theory, but if I understand it correctly, what helped to settle it for them was the same thing Darwin appealed to: the correlation of species variation with geography: from that, you get better support for evolution than catastrophism, and that's the beginning of the end for Creationism.

Nowadays of course, there are detailed mechanisms, specific genetic and radiometric predictions and overwhelming genetic, morphological and paleological correlation. But they didn't have all that back then, and I think it's really interesting how they managed to sort their differences out anyway.

I suspect this is a thread for Science, Skep. Please let me know how much detail you want and I'll dig up what I have as time permits.

I'm fairly familiar with early evolution debate although your post leaves me feeling I could obviously stand to learn a bit more. ;-) However, I was referring to the part of your comment regarding Christian literalist interpretations being fairly widespread and/or accepted by early Christian scientists.

Oh..*poke*. I almost forgot. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 2:24:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?
If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.

There's only so much of the "Answers in Genesis" site that a science literate person can take in one sitting...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 2:25:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 2:01:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/8/2016 12:49:33 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please let me know how much detail you want and I'll dig up what I have as time permits.

I'm fairly familiar with early evolution debate although your post leaves me feeling I could obviously stand to learn a bit more. ;-) However, I was referring to the part of your comment regarding Christian literalist interpretations being fairly widespread and/or accepted by early Christian scientists.

Oh..*poke*. I almost forgot. ;-)

Well, the Catastrophism conjecture -- one of destruction and recreation -- is essentially an attempt to reconcile Creationism with the extinction of species evidenced by fossils. Without meaning to diss an idea that earlier scientists took seriously, it's not so much an empirical conjecture of the appearance of species as an empirical conjecture of their departure with a shrug as to how new species arrived.

To mix my biomechanical metaphors, that shrug is also a nod -- a shr'nod... a nodrug -- to the idea that new life might have been created inexplicably, and therefore without evidence of how it occurred. So Genesis creationism becomes Serial Re-creation -- a theological reconciliation of Genesis and the obvious serial extinction evidenced by fossils of creatures no longer extant.

Catastrophism put the intellectual burden back on empiricism to produce some mechanism by which new, inheritable morphologies appeared. As you likely know there were various attempts at this, with an early effort at evolution ventured by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who suggested that individual efforts to live might create heritable morphological differences. This was soundly (and rightly) dismissed by the Father of Paleontology 'Georges' Cuvier -- a catastrophist and strong opponent of pre-Darwinian evolution, who despite his doctrinaire religiosity, did some magnificent work on comparative anatomy and hence established the underpinnings of modern paleontology (and eventually part of the foundations for Darwinian evolution.)

I'd have to look into the letters of the day, but if I could conjecture what did away with Catastrophism, it's that it really had no predictive alternative to offer for the appearance of new species: either old species somehow transmuted into new ones, or they parachuted inexplicably in from the sky with no inkling of what would appear next. So the moment you have an accurate, predictive theory for new species appearing (as Lamarck didn't, but Darwin did, and Alfred Russell Wallace was beginning to develop too), there's really no alternative: you can fight a delaying action, insist on dotting i's and crossing t's -- but science has to do that anyway. Essentially while empiricists keep lifting their own bar of predictive accuracy, at some point you either have to advance an equally transparent but more predictive alternative theory, say 'Okay, I'm convinced' -- or slink away from science altogether and hide your head under the blankets.

Culturally, cherished doctrine is hard to shake. Even 150 years later, we still see people trying to lift a bar of evidence they no longer understand, demand a retrial of debunked ideas that failed for good reason, conjecture vague alternatives less transparent or predictive than the accepted model, or slink away while muttering paranoid conspiracy theories.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 3:44:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 2:25:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Well, the Catastrophism conjecture -- one of destruction and recreation -- is essentially an attempt to reconcile Creationism with the extinction of species evidenced by fossils.

Skep, I should also add that from my readings, the Catastrophists weren't Christian fundamentalists. They were smart, devout Christian scientists devoted to both science and their faith, who felt that there was -- or would be -- no doctrinal conflict between empiricism and some reasonably faithful interpretation of Genesis. They contributed constructively to scientific methodology, generally acted honestly even if with their own biases, and that they were wrong about the models is no shame -- science is nothing if not the serial discovery of one's own ignorance and error. :)

What came later -- the Christian fundamentalism of the late 19th and early 20th century -- was a largely US phenomenon,and still is. It's a conservative Protestant American reaction in part to the link between empiricism and secularism, but also between secularism and social welfare, and shifting American cultural identity. (I do have a good book on that if you want.)

The leaders of that intellectual movement are not dedicated scientists as the Catastrophists were -- but marketeers and spin-doctors: frauds and cynics speaking to the ignorant and making them stupid. And (some) conservative Protestants are listening because cultural protection and nurturing has been traditionally vested unquestioned in the hands of patriarchs and elders.

Which is why we see 'why aren't you listening' threads like this one: threads asked politely in good faith by intelligent and sincere members who (I regret to say) are being intellectually abused by leaders who ought to know better and do better by their parishioners, and who (perhaps understandably) can't or won't trust secularists to tell them otherwise. :(

I find it heartbreaking, when I'm not outraged by what such pastoral dishonesty has created.
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:05:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:13:52 PM, rnjs wrote:
even know what the creationists interpretation of the evidence/facts is?

No, because, lacking the scientific method, they have no consensus on what that is. That is why, when debating evolution, it is a good idea to ask each individual creationist exactly what they do believe.

If one dismisses something they should at least know what it is they are denying otherwise they are highly susceptible to misrepresentation (and, Yes, I know that goes both ways) but when I asked what evidence one would expect if creationism were true, I got no relevant answers.

They are usually reluctant to even specify what they believe, other than "evolution is wrong," and "God did it."
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:10:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
They'll acknowledge relativity and how the reality they perceive is constructed, but the idea that all of this is creation seems to escape them.

Kids need to argue about something, right? Let them figure it out. The joke is that natural selection, intelligent design, and creationism don't conflict each other if you have a complete understanding of the concepts involved. Let the gnostics make fools of themselves. Unless they are insecure and have pride issues, they'll grow up one day.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 5:05:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 3:44:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/8/2016 2:25:28 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Well, the Catastrophism conjecture -- one of destruction and recreation -- is essentially an attempt to reconcile Creationism with the extinction of species evidenced by fossils.

Skep, I should also add that from my readings, the Catastrophists weren't Christian fundamentalists. They were smart, devout Christian scientists devoted to both science and their faith, who felt that there was -- or would be -- no doctrinal conflict between empiricism and some reasonably faithful interpretation of Genesis. They contributed constructively to scientific methodology, generally acted honestly even if with their own biases, and that they were wrong about the models is no shame -- science is nothing if not the serial discovery of one's own ignorance and error. :)

What came later -- the Christian fundamentalism of the late 19th and early 20th century -- was a largely US phenomenon,and still is. It's a conservative Protestant American reaction in part to the link between empiricism and secularism, but also between secularism and social welfare, and shifting American cultural identity. (I do have a good book on that if you want.)

Yes, I would be very interested in that book.

The leaders of that intellectual movement are not dedicated scientists as the Catastrophists were -- but marketeers and spin-doctors: frauds and cynics speaking to the ignorant and making them stupid. And (some) conservative Protestants are listening because cultural protection and nurturing has been traditionally vested unquestioned in the hands of patriarchs and elders.

I can do nothing but agree here. From what I see (and from what polls tell me of what I can't see), American society is permeated by those proclaiming ignorance as though it were knowledge and those who naively figure anyone who speaks with authority must know what they are talking about. Of course, they are both wrong.

Which is why we see 'why aren't you listening' threads like this one: threads asked politely in good faith by intelligent and sincere members who (I regret to say) are being intellectually abused by leaders who ought to know better and do better by their parishioners, and who (perhaps understandably) can't or won't trust secularists to tell them otherwise. :(

This resonates with my experience. I've come to realize most believers I come in contact with are repeating what bad leaders (or other repeaters) have told them - 'they know not what they do' (to borrow a phrase). These people deserve compassionate, sincere, and straight-forward conversation explaining why religion deserves no place in science, education, politics, medicine, legislation, social issues, etc. Unfortunately, some of our allies in this may forget that the religious are not necessarily our enemy and bridges are burned constantly.

I find it heartbreaking, when I'm not outraged by what such pastoral dishonesty has created.

I can certainly understand that...although, I'm mostly heartbroken at this point. I recently witnessed a young man be denied a significant achievement (he earned) because of religion. I realize I'm getting pretty far off topic, so, give me a yell if interested in the long version.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:05:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 5:05:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/8/2016 3:44:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
What came later -- the Christian fundamentalism of the late 19th and early 20th century -- was a largely US phenomenon,and still is. It's a conservative Protestant American reaction in part to the link between empiricism and secularism, but also between secularism and social welfare, and shifting American cultural identity. (I do have a good book on that if you want.)
Yes, I would be very interested in that book.

I can recommend George Marsden's Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 1990 Available in dead tree and ebook form. [https://www.amazon.com...]

The leaders of that intellectual movement are not dedicated scientists as the Catastrophists were -- but marketeers and spin-doctors: frauds and cynics speaking to the ignorant and making them stupid. And (some) conservative Protestants are listening because cultural protection and nurturing has been traditionally vested unquestioned in the hands of patriarchs and elders.
American society is permeated by those proclaiming ignorance as though it were knowledge and those who naively figure anyone who speaks with authority must know what they are talking about. Of course, they are both wrong.
Not to run too far off the rails, but I suspect something both silly and ironic happened in the early 1990s to trigger the current ID fraud.

A brief intellectual war called the Science Wars erupted between postmodern cultural relativists from the humanities and the sciences. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Cultural relativists had taken the position that there was no such thing as objective epistemology (though how they'd know that absolutely is beyond me :D), and that all scientific empiricism was essentially cultural paternalism. Science smacked that one in the face through the hoax of Physicist Alan Sokal [https://en.wikipedia.org...], who showed through a pseudosociological manuscript -- real Physics salted with utter nonsense (hilariously entitled: Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity) -- that one of the flagship academic journals of the postmodern movement, Duke University's Social Text, had an editorial standard that was virtually nonexistent. Quite appropriately, the postmodern movement pulled its horns in, and as far as academe was concerned, that was that.

But in popular culture, postmodernism had still become popular on the back of what I think was a post-colonial post male-chauvinistic cringe. And the popular position which we still hear today is that all authority (including all knowledge) is subjective. And it became either unethical, insensitive, and by some strange twist of fate, an invocation of white, male heterosexual privilege to say otherwise -- even if you were none of those things. :)

This created enormous license for pretty much anyone (but especially New Agers on one hand, and -- ironically -- conservative religious extremists on the other) to take up the cry: all knowledge is subjective, therefore science is subjective, therefore uh... our subjective and debunked doctrines are either equal or superior to science because they debunk the fraudulent paternalism of the science that once debunked their fraudulent paternalism.

One could weep -- though whether with gasping laughter or bitter tears, I'm never sure. :)

In any case some sociologists are now kicking themselves. For example, philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist of science Bruno Latour [https://en.wikipedia.org...] has commented:
Ph.D. programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?
(Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern, Critical Inquiry, Winter, 2004)
[http://www.bruno-latour.fr...]

Which is why we see 'why aren't you listening' threads like this one: threads asked politely in good faith by intelligent and sincere members who (I regret to say) are being intellectually abused by leaders who ought to know better and do better by their parishioners
This resonates with my experience. I've come to realize most believers I come in contact with are repeating what bad leaders (or other repeaters) have told them

And they've been told not to trust anyone not of their faith who says otherwise because y'know... subjective bias. :p

(That's how the JWs started, y'know.)

I find it heartbreaking, when I'm not outraged by what such pastoral dishonesty has created.
I can certainly understand that...although, I'm mostly heartbroken at this point. I recently witnessed a young man be denied a significant achievement (he earned) because of religion. I realize I'm getting pretty far off topic, so, give me a yell if interested in the long version.

Of course I'm interested! Religion and society fascinates me. Please pop it in another thread.

(Also, apologies to our OP for what is likely too much background all at once to be fully relevant to the post's intention -- even if it's highly relevant to how such questions suddenly arose.)
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:17:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 4:10:42 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
They'll acknowledge relativity and how the reality they perceive is constructed, but the idea that all of this is creation seems to escape them.

Kids need to argue about something, right? Let them figure it out. The joke is that
natural selection,

Natural Selection is the theory that if an organism can survive longer, it can then reproduce, meaning that more of the gene which allowed it to reproduce is around, because they would be more likely to survive.

intelligent design,

Intelligent design, is where we say that God designed the animals. God being the sustainer of the universe, who literally makes science work every second of our lives, so that we don't need to live in chaos. If God is making our universe work the way it is, then does that not mean that he created the animals?

and creationism

"Creationism is the belief that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation." - see above.

don't conflict each other if you have a complete understanding of the concepts involved.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11