|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YECism: sect or cult? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: YECism is fairly young compared to other traditional (denomination) beliefs, a "form of the religious belief of creationism" and my question is whether this "form" is a sect or a cult?
quote: As a fairly recent group that relies heavily on a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, YECism certainly qualifies as a sect outside the mainstream umbrella of (denominational) Christian beliefs.
quote: There seems to me to be a fine line between sect and cult, particularly when the beliefs are strongly fundamentalist, insist on having their own facts and interpretations which are at odds with mainstream beliefs and particularly when they are at odds with the reality of the world around us. There certainly are a number of people that can be classified as charismatics (or used car salesmen ... ). My position is that YECism is a cult that uses convenient lies, comfortable misinformation, and selective half truths mixed with fantasy, and it relies on general uneducated ignorance to push a set of beliefs that are at odds with reality (the earth is not young, there was no flood). It crossed the line when it began advocating religious misinformation be included in science texts and building monuments to ignorance (the Creation "Museum" and the Ark "Encounter" theme park). Let the howling begin. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The CCoI!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think YECism is either a sect or a cult. It is an umbrella belief system that covers multiple sects and cults - it is not a cohesive group in and of itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
I think YECism is a cult in the sense of "mind-control cult". They certainly don't want their adherents studying science. They need their own schools, museums, etc. to prevent it.
It crosses sect boundaries - e.g Seventh-Day Adventists and (other) Fundamentalists - not to mention Muslims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
OECs were trained to constantly use terms like "Ussher's chronology" and other slights of hand to make it seem like YEC views were some freakish modern invention.
The YEC view was universal. (outside of pagan India and perhaps other non Western nations that is) Why do you think Charles Lyell put the age of the Earth as young as 100,000 years old even after his groundbreaking 1831 book? (I think his range was 100,000 to 1 million but I'm not too sure) Answers in Genesis is actually correct in one area anyway (The Fundamentals of the early 20th century are irrelevant except perhaps as a catalyst for action on the part of YECs, but YECs were the vast overwhelming majority and the numerical superiority over OECs were even greater the further back you go)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: But Creationism itself was a respectable belief until about 1859. And many of the founders of the various fields in modern science would have been on the creationist side. Even more shocking is that well into the 1900s, you had leading lights (like Mendel) who were creationists. This isn't quite as simple of an issue as some like to make it. (The evidence is in NOW for an old earth and even evolution itself - rather decisively, but the older creationist views have the weight of nearly all of recorded human history on their side)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
LamarkNewAge writes:
So were astrology and alchemy. Along with creationism, they were disproven by science.
But Creationism itself was a respectable belief until about 1859.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
RAZD writes: I think that to be fair we need to differentiate between what standard science teaches as opposed to creationist philosophy. For starters, I suggest we don't ridicule and vilify them before hearing their arguments out. I had to do some research and my first premise was that creationist methodology differed from mainstream science. My question was why? My premise was based on my comic which I tried to get Faith to verify or deny---but she refused to comment. All I wanted was confirmation of the truth behind the humor.
There seems to me to be a fine line between sect and cult, particularly when the beliefs are strongly fundamentalist, insist on having their own facts and interpretations which are at odds with mainstream beliefs and particularly when they are at odds with the reality of the world around us. There certainly are a number of people that can be classified as charismatics (or used car salesmen ... ). So my first question which I asked to form my premise was whether the comic had a grain of truth behind it. I looked up an apologetics website, CARM and looked at questions about science. Here is a snippet of what was said:CARM writes:
I also hypothesized that one reason that Faith does not answer many questions was that she had a different set of assumptions about how the world works and worked than science does. Faith writes: I start from a different set of assumptions than the others here do, and I think it all through from that different set of assumptions. I also do pray about it. Nobody else here has a reason to consider it from my different set of assumptions so they often don't even try to think about it from my point of view, they just keep throwing out the arguments based on their very different set of assumptions. I'm doing what the creationists all do but I do it independently of most of their arguments, think it through on my own. We respect Faith as we would any member but we are going to have to find answers apart from her since she won't get involved in a religious discussion while attempting to verify her science or belief (in Gods way of doing science) My next creationist to study is Ken Ham. (no snickering in the balcony, please)Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
First I will point out that if Faith's objections were truly scientific then starting off with different assumptions would not necessarily matter (and they often do not seem to) - and if they did then explaining them and their relevance - and their justification should be an important part of her arguments - and that is not the case.
So I think we can dismiss that as very likely a rationalisation for the failure of her arguments. The CARM article is little better. Even aside from their ideas about materialism (which they don't get quite right) it would be more true to say that their philosophical commitments are a problem than those of the scientists. Assuming that materialism is false does nothing to dispel the evidence for evolution. And, of course, there is no rule saying that scientists must restrict themselves to science - and I don't really think they understand the scientists they are criticising. (And somebody who doesn't understand what a theory is in science really shouldn't be writing a FAQ relating to science)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
PaulK writes: CARM expounds upon their definition of materialism: The CARM article is little better. Even aside from their ideas about materialism (which they don't get quite right), it would be more true to say that their philosophical commitments are a problem than those of the scientists. Assuming that materialism is false does nothing to dispel the evidence for evolution. And, of course, there is no rule saying that scientists must restrict themselves to science - and I don't really think they understand the scientists they are criticising.CARM,on Materialism writes:
Materialism is the position that only material things exist and that all other things can be explained in terms of matter and the physical properties of matter. It would deny the existence of anything immaterial, such as the mind. Contrast with physicalism.There is no real difference between materialism and physicalism since both posit that the universe is all that there is and that everything in it (gravity, light, thoughts, beauty, etc.,) are dependent upon the physical realm. CARM,on Naturalism writes: Naturalism is the position that nature is all there is and there is no supernatural realm. It says that all of human experience can be described and understood through natural laws, science, and human reason. It asserts that biological evolution is true and that there are no supernatural realities. Of course, we have discussed this here before, and I believe we concluded that a belief need not be as logical as a theory, and given that the supernatural could never be tested, it could not be legitimately be hypothesized. I had problems with this for a long time for I felt I needed to prove my belief. Now, I simply declare that I believe and, like jar also says, I may be wrong.(Though I believe that I am right--there most definitely is a supernatural.) Another neat fact I dug up was polling on what percentage of people believe what.
quote: Anyway, I am about to dig into the beliefs of Ken Ham and AiG. For the record, I never claimed myself to be a YEC, though Ham always said that a belief in a literal Genesis was the foundation of biblical belief. Stay tuned...Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think the fundamental point of Materialism was always the refusal to recognise Mind as a separate Substance, leaving minds dependant on physical reality. That doesn't necessarily rule out the supernatural but does impose some limits.
Personally I hold that the supernatural (in general) cannot be adequately tested to the point where it could be science and it is very hard to come up with a case where supernatural causes could be rigorously demonstrated. I'd add that much of the claimed evidence for the supernatural does not get to the level where I would consider it even to be a reasonable possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
PaulK writes: There is no evidence, in the strict definition of the word. Some of us have experienced a feeling. Subjectively we had strong confirmation. Granted we are biased towards accepting the possibility, whereas someone such as yourself---who has never had such an experience...would be quite logically biased towards evidence as the only standard. I'd add that much of the claimed evidence for the supernatural does not get to the level where I would consider it even to be a reasonable possibility. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But there is a problem. Subjective experiences in themselves - and even worse, the memories of subjective experiences aren't exactly good evidence, even for those that have them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Some of us have experienced a feeling. Subjectively we had strong confirmation. I'd say that's almost normal - all you need is the right conditioning and have it reinforced by other. (It should be a clincher that no one ever believes in something that the society they live in has never come across, but of course it isn't somehow.) I believed the entire thing in a really committed way until my early teens. Then suddendly I didn't - it all become utterly preposterous. Now if your god actually does exist why would he do that? One minute I'm saved the next I'm going to hell for all eternity. Seems a tad unfair don't you think?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: If my God exists, it would not matter what you do or do not believe. Your only commitment should be to your fellow humans. If you ever were saved, you will never lose that. I believed the entire thing in a really committed way until my early teens. Then suddendly I didn't - it all become utterly preposterous. Now if your god actually does exist why would he do that? One minute I'm saved the next I'm going to hell for all eternity. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024