I don't necessarily think people have to accept the theory of evolution or the world will end. It doesn't matter to some people where we came from, and that's fine. It does upset me when these people who are very ignorant of not just the theory of evolution (which is the theory that is supported by more disciplines in science than any other out there) but science in general, get in the way of education. Not enough people understand enough about science to make an informed decision. Though the concepts are not hard to grasp and just about anyone should be able to see that Evolution is the best description for the diversity of life, the fact is a great many people just don't care enough to find out. An other thing that bothers me is these people who do know a little bit about science and how it works, who help perpetuate the ignorance towards evolution, like all the people at the discovery institute.Moonwood the Hare wrote:Found a link to this from Victor Reppert's blog. thought you guys might be interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/creationists-vs-evolutionists-an-american-story/258384/
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Found a link to this from Victor Reppert's blog. thought you guys might be interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/creationists-vs-evolutionists-an-american-story/258384/
mitchellmckain wrote:Yes the article demonstrates a point that I have trying to get across to atheists for some time. If they keep pushing this bullshit argument that evolution and science means that Christianity is wrong and/or God does not exist the only result will be that evolution and science loses credibility. The argument is not only just plain wrong but it doesn't accomplish anything good whatsoever.
[Update, 6/12, 10:30 a.m.: Some commenters have convinced me that, in saying that people like Dawkins and Myers "violated the nonaggression pact," I made the violation sound more unilateral than it was. I don't doubt that some creationists had already amped up their assault on the curriculum (and sometimes succeeded not just in a formal sense but more subtly). Still, my main points are (1) even if this is what provoked Dawkins, Myers, et. al., their gratuitously insulting reaction (IMHO) was still counter-productive, fueling the anti-evolutionism fires; (2) their reaction may well have abetted anti-scientism in areas unrelated to evolution, such as climate change.]
But I do think that if somebody wants to convince a fundamentalist Christian that climate scientists aren't to be trusted, the Christian's prior association of scientists like Dawkins with evil makes that job easier.
Keep The Reason wrote:Evolution does pretty much put the kibosh on Christianity's literal claim that we are born sinful. The story of "man's fall" did not happen; it's not how humanity was brought into being, and without sin, we have no need for a savior.
We're not born sinful, we're born human.
And in order to overcome elements of humanness that we know are troubling, like our innate inclination towards aggression, we have to understand where that aggressiveness comes from. Averring that such tendencies come from something "spiritual" is masking its true source. Christianity as a solution to this problem is indeed, wrong and one has to perform feats of philosophical legerdemain in order to fit the round peg of Christianity into the square hole of reality.
For some people, the solution is to ignore it altogether. They believe Christianity on one side, but recognize evolution on the other and they categorize one away from the other. This is the liberal Christianity we see in many of the posters here who seem to consider Christianity to be somewhere between true and metaphorical.
Then there are those who adopt a literal interpretation, and support the Genesis worldview over the facts (fundies, who everyone like to pretend are an ineffectual minority but while they may be a minority, they certainly are not "ineffectual").
As to "Disproving god", it's agreed by almost everyone that evolution doesn't disprove god or say anything about god one way or the other (only ill-informed theists make this claim). No one of note in the atheist camp says it does -- not Dawkins, not PZ Meyers, not Dennett, not Hitchens, not Harris, etc. But "not disproving god" is completely different from saying "Slays Christianity". Evolution slays Christianity because we evolved, we weren't created perfect from a perfect being and then fell into sin therefore we need a savior.
No, we do not. We need to do the work ourselves and continue to evolve.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:I think the most evolution can be said to have done is to make it necessary to question some aspects of the teaching of St. Augustine or possibly of some interpretations of Augustine.
Not sure why you think these are alternatives.
I can see the advantage of an evolutionary understanding of our aggression but I'm not really sure what you mean by spiritual. What you seem to be saying is that the theory of evolution is incompatible with some kind of disembodies neo-platonic idea of spirituality
Can't speak for anyone else but for me true and metaphorical are not alternatives - so I see Christianity as true and metaphorical.
Most fundamentalists are not really literalist, in many ways they do not take the Bible very literally at all. Certainly they read it any a very odd, very modern way.
And of course Genesis does not say anything about people being created perfect and the need for a saviour does not derive from this supposed perfection. I think the problem hear KTR is that like many 'Fundamentalists' the only theological views you are really aware of are Fundamentalist ones and you slap the one size fits all label liberalism on anything that is not fairly extreme fundamentalism.
Keep The Reason wrote: My concern is with the theocrats. Whatever your interpretations of Christianity are, as long as they don't drive towards theocracy, I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Keep The Reason wrote:We're not born sinful, we're born human.
Not sure why you think these are alternatives.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Anyone on this site advocating theocracy? If not not sure why Keep the Reason is bothering to argue with us instead of spending his time on a Reconstructionist site.
Keep The Reason wrote:Moonwood the Hare wrote:Anyone on this site advocating theocracy? If not not sure why Keep the Reason is bothering to argue with us instead of spending his time on a Reconstructionist site.
I like some of you.
What makes you think I'm not on other sites?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Well at any rate I've never advocated theocracy and I've never seen anyone here advocate that. Of course the reconstructionists would say they don't advocate theocracy either but they come a lot closer to it than anyone here. I certainly don't seem myself as a theological liberal. I see myself as a theological conservative. Politically I'm a liberal small l.
The thing with metaphorical language - I can't see why you don't get it. Do you see what I did? Was I telling the truth about what I think?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Almost all language is metaphorical to some extent this does not mean we spend our time lying or making meaningless statements. Certainly all the language the Bible uses to talk about God is metaphorical or at least I can't think of a single exception to that. Sometimes theology uses very abstract technical language which has been developed for a specific purpose but even then that is often used alongside metaphor. So the idea that Christians used to take their beliefs very literally and then sometime in the 19th Century some of them stopped doing that and started using the language metaphorically is a myth. So if say you were to ask me do you think the virgin birth really happened or is it just a metaphor I would feel comfortable saying both. The Church Fathers say both - they believe it literally and see its metaphorical significance. As a bare event it would have no significance at all. Someone was born without a father, surprising but so what. The inability of say Richard Dawkins to understand such subtelties is demonstrated by his hilarious nonsence about the fatherless man. He takes a story about a man who had God as his father, a powerful myth, and interprets it as a story about a man who had no father.
Let me take another example. We are told that when Jesus died blood and water came from his side. This may have described what literally happened although the exact medical cause will remain unknown but for John who records it it seems to have a deeper significance. St Augustine develops this by seeing the water and blood as symbols of baptism and communion which may be what John had in mind but also sees a parallel with the Church the bride of Christ founded on the sacraments being taken from the side of Christ as Eve was taken from the side of Adam. Again a powerful myth. Then in the age of science someone decided to do some experiments on animals to see if he could find what happened and found that the blood of dying animals divedes in that way when they are under extreme stress and that it is evidence of death. Very prosaic and perhaps even true. Someone else then noted that this would mean quite literally that Christ died of a broken heart. It's as if having demythologised the story people had to remythologse it to make it work.
mitchellmckain wrote:Yes the article demonstrates a point that I have trying to get across to atheists for some time. If they keep pushing this bullshit argument that evolution and science means that Christianity is wrong and/or God does not exist the only result will be that evoltion and science loses credibility. The argument is not only just plain wrong but it doesn't accomplish anything good whatsoever.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests