What matters most for abandoning creationism: facts, or religious interpretation?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Buckaroo Banzai, Oct 9, 2013.

  1. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    I have the strong feeling that for something like two thirds of the creationists, or about 90% of the creationists that constantly debate the subject on internet forums, there would never be any particular set of facts, evidence, or concise explanation, that would convince them that organisms don't just look as if they're related by coincidence/"common functions", but really are. Instead, religious belief takes total primacy. One would have first to become convinced that some religious notion, like Jesus dying on the cross to somehow pay for humankind's sins and save everyone's souls, is compatible with life having evolved naturally, rather than being created by rivers and sand at Yahweh's command. Either that or becoming agnostic/atheist.


    If that's the case, I think that the perhaps-less-apathetic-than-it-could-be approach of some of the so-called "new atheists" towards people and organizations like Bio-logos (which, AFAIK basically promotes that Christianity is compatible with "standard" natural sciences, no miracles invoked as scientific explanations or conclusions) is deemed to be very counter productive in the advancement of the public acceptance of science.

    I suspect that many of the scientifically-inclined people would perhaps be "sucked" into atheism/agnosticism, and from there, they'd exert less influence over literalists than they could, from a "common ground". Literalists would have stronger social reinforcement, or less opportunity of "leakage," of potentially scientifically inclined individuals finding others like themselves among "them," or people close to "them", rather than science being just something of the "outgroup" that rejects, often harshly, what they hold as core values or ideas.


    But I may well be wrong on both things. I'm curious about other people's perceptions, and perhaps there's even some related social research that might give a clue in one way or another.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What matters most for abandoning creationism: facts, or religious interpretation?

    Investigating the idea that humans, animals and plants are not necessary beings, in contrast to God who is conceived as the one and only necessary being.
    This idea is typically Christian, and is not shared by all theistic religions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Evolution does not fully take into account the impact of water. Life began within water and continues to evolve within water. This means that water is the micro-environment and micro-ecosystem of evolution. Water comprises 9 out 10 of all the molecule in life.

    If we apply the theory of natural selection, microevolution should be a direct function of selection within water. At the macro-scale if the environment is X, selection is connected to X. The same should be true of the micro-environment of water. Yet the current models ignore their own theory in favor of a blind model led by the god of chaos.

    Evolution should be challenged due to its connection to religion of chaos. It is not yet in the age of reason. For example, water is based on hydrogen bonding, while RNA and DNA ,which came later are based on hydrogen bonding. The current models says this is coincidence based on God of chance and not the direct result of natural selection in water. If the DNA does something, there is nothing to see connected to water, since the god of chaos is in control. The religion of chaos should be challenged. At least regular religions are not intertwined with science where they can be isolated. The chaos religion has infiltrated science and is creating illusions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,397
    I am sure you are onto something here. Their views are religiously inspired and immune to rational argument from a science perspective, as they already have a deep suspicion of science.

    I do think a better way to appeal to creationists would be to get them to take an interest in what theologians and biblical scholars have thought, down the centuries. This might open their eyes to the differing emphases and interpretations that people have placed on the bible, i.e. it is naive and superficial to think you can just take the words at face value and that's it, job done. Once they realise that nuance and figurative language and imagery play a role, there might just be a chance of persuading them that the doctrines of the Fall, Original Sin and Redemption can perfectly easily survive without taking Genesis literally. Because it is fear of losing those doctrines that drives them to their absurd beliefs
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I don't think rational believers have ever had much influence over literalists. They're two different types of belief, and two different kinds of believer.

    I also don't think there's any way to appeal to creationists. The cure for literalism is knowledge, so our best chance of squashing this latest incursion of fundamentalist Christianity in our classrooms is to keep on teaching. Make it difficult to be stupid.
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    What matters most for abandoning creationism: facts, or religious interpretation?

    How can I abandon creation , since we don't have any explanation , on how life started chemically on this planet , there are some BS from so called expert which they can not explain chemically you can put polymers together. Hand waving I do not accept even the individual have high credential. We don't have a good explanation on how our earth was formed nor what kind of atmosphere was at the beginning.
    But for me Genesis 1 is a fair explanation for evolution and at the end of the creation or call it evolution man was formed and authority was given to oversee the earth and animals ( been superior to animals ) and here we are .

    As for atheist . they are a bunch who grow and were nurtured in a God knowing environment and got frustrated that the creator does not appear to them in person m so they got upset, then claim god does not exist.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,397
    Totally agree.

    The depressing thing about fundamentalists is their refusal to accept any authority other than that of the bible. That means in effect, that they are precluded, for religious reasons, from learning what others who have gone before them have thought, i.e. they cannot acknowledge and build on previous intellectual achievement. If you can't do that you are essentially unteachable and are doomed to re-invent the wheel, usually badly, over and over again. It's a belief system for idiots.
     
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    Who is the authority ? Change are taken place among those who believe fundamentalism, I am one in millions who changed .
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Mostly it's the preachers who are the authority, rather than the book itself. If you put the bible up against science, science is going to win because it usually makes more sense (I say usually because quantum mechanics is, well, freaking impossible to understand) so the hook comes from the demagoguery of evangelist tent-gods preaching the "evils of scientism," a term itself that would not exist if not for the ignorance of the zealot.

    But I suspect if you make science too hard to ignore, eventually you'll win most of them over.
     
  13. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,603
    Knowledge by itself, won't cause someone to abandon the concept of creationism. Abandoning one's "religious" beliefs that cause one to adhere to the concept of creationism, is what is required.

    If someone values their spiritual beliefs, and science challenges those beliefs, the person will uphold what he/she values the most. It is as simple as that. It has little to do with one's willingness to accept knowledge on a subject, rather it has more to do with having to abandon a belief system in order to accept that knowledge.

    I speak from experience; I couldn't "in good faith" reject creationism and still call myself a practicing Christian. And once I realized that, my abandonment of Christianity followed soon after.
     
  14. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,603
    On another note, I'm curious as to how other religions and spiritual belief systems view creationism. I'm only speaking from my own vantage point, as it relates to Christianity.
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I think the point is to make fundamentalism harder to reach by starting people off with an education in the sciences. It's an exercise in logic and reasoning that should make it more difficult for them to accept the dogmatic teachings of whatever splinter group their parents belong to.

    Saving people who are already deeply entrenched in their fundamentalism isn't really part of the plan, unfortunately. The brainwashers got to them first, and now it's up to the individual.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,397
    Yes, you sound like someone with an ex fundamentalist US Protestant experience. The astonishing thing is virtually any Christian denomination with a clerical hierarchy got over the problems with all this 150 years ago! Because their scholars and clergy over the years - or even centuries (Augustine of Hippo) - have thought about it and passed on their teaching. But that means a degree of acceptance of their authority - or at least openness to it.

    It's those groups that wall themselves off in their little towns and listen only to a preacher-man in a business suit that end up with crazy views. But they are not remotely representative of Christendom.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Buckaroo,

    Are you saying that it would be good to engage in outreach towards moderate religionists so they can influence the hardcore? It's my view that the moderates are the gateway drug to the fundies, and it would not be good to give in to either of them. Faith and science are fundamentally opposed.
     
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    We have grown in a is a believing society , which means attachment to a deity. Many time as we transgress the law we become rebellious and so instead correct our ways before God , we rationalize that there is no god , and to reenforce our direction of thinking , we look into the misery in the world and ask how can there be a god to allow such misery.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That is not correct. We either believe something or we don't. No one decides that since they want to break religious law, they choose not to believe in god.

    The problem of evil still exists.
     
  20. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Have come to your head that the scientist have to have faith in what he is doing , and the faith is based on his experience . The same is with many Christians thsy have faith in what they believe .
     
  21. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    Yo some extent Wegs is your example .
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,290
    This is the typical response from the scientifically illiterate who have yet to take their noses out of the Bible and read books. Of course, the scientifically illiterate represent a small minority, growing smaller all the time, soon they will be as extinct as the dodo and as irrelevant as the gods they embrace.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You are making an equivocation fallacy. This has to do with mistaking the average meaning of faith (trust or tentative beliefs) with the religious meaning of faith (absolute belief without evidence).
     

Share This Page