Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 2:06 PM
350 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, granpa, halibut, Joe T, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, RAZD, Stile (10 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,855 Year: 25,461/21,208 Month: 1,088/2,338 Week: 209/450 Day: 29/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   YECism: sect or cult?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1 of 95 (818063)
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


quote:
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of the religious belief of creationism[1] which holds that the universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary adherents are Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible's Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[3][4] In contrast to YEC, old Earth creationism is the belief in a metaphorical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the scientifically-determined estimated ages of the Earth and Universe.[5]

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists—starting with Henry Morris (1918–2006)—have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation. ...

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a renewed interest in proposals that the Earth was thousands of years old, as a part of the movement's rejection of evolution. ...


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:
A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles.

... In the church-sect typology they are described as newly formed religious groups that form to protest elements of their parent religion (generally a denomination). Their motivation tends to be situated in accusations of apostasy or heresy in the parent denomination; they are often decrying liberal trends in denominational development and advocating a return to true religion. The American sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge assert that "sects claim to be authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split".[4] ...


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:
The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. ... In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices, ...

Beginning in the 1930s, cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.[11] ...

The term "new religious movement" refers to religions which have appeared since the mid-1800s. Many, but not all of them, have been considered cults. ...


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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-23-2017 10:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 1:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 1:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 9:32 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29438
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2 of 95 (818068)
08-23-2017 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


The CCoI!

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 3 of 95 (818096)
08-23-2017 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13726
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(6)
Message 4 of 95 (818118)
08-23-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-26-2017 6:00 PM ringo has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 5 of 95 (818311)
08-26-2017 5:55 PM


RAZD has fallen for OEC propaganda.
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: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 6 of 95 (818312)
08-26-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
08-23-2017 3:40 PM


quote:

I think YECism is a cult in the sense of "mind-control cult". They certainly don't want their adherents studying science.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 08-27-2017 2:21 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13726
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 7 of 95 (818359)
08-27-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
08-26-2017 6:00 PM


LamarkNewAge writes:

But Creationism itself was a respectable belief until about 1859.


So were astrology and alchemy. Along with creationism, they were disproven by science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-26-2017 6:00 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 8 of 95 (820552)
09-22-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
RAZD writes:

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 ... ).

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.

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:


  • Don't get me wrong. The scientific method works. We have its benefits all around us. But, philosophically, there is a problem. The scientific method presupposes naturalism and/or materialism because it relies on testing and repeatability, things that are necessarily focused only on the material world. Naturalism is the belief that the world can be understood in scientific terms. Materialism is the belief that matter (and energy) is all there is. If these assumptions are held, then by definition God cannot be known and must be excused from the realm of knowledge thus established by the scientific method. If scientists and believers in the sufficiency of the scientific method kept their questions of theology out of the picture, then that would be fine. But they don’t. They promote evolution as the truth of how man got here and often state that belief in God is irrational – because it can’t be tested by the scientific method (...)If the scientific method were restricted to materialistic phenomena, and if it did not comment on God’s existence, then that would not be a problem (except for it philosophical inconsistencies). But increasingly, scientists (Dawkins, Coyne, et. al.) are making proclamations about realms not covered in science. They have adopted the philosophical view that science is the only true means of learning, and that if it can't be tested in a lab, it doesn't exist. This is an unfounded idea with its own pitfalls. Think about it. How does science test and quantify morality, love, mercy, justice, compassion, or the transcendent God who exists outside of the universe, etc., all of which are realities that do not reside in the realm of matter and motion?
  • 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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 1:55 PM Phat has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13228
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    (2)
    Message 9 of 95 (820559)
    09-22-2017 1:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
    09-22-2017 1:29 PM


    Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
    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)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 1:29 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 2:23 PM PaulK has responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9891
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 10 of 95 (820560)
    09-22-2017 2:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
    09-22-2017 1:55 PM


    Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
    PaulK writes:

    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 expounds upon their definition of materialism:
    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:
    In 2005, when the Harris Poll asked people “Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not,” 38% agreed that humans did develop from early species, but in the same survey, 49% agreed with evolution when asked: “Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?” So explicitly mentioning human evolution led to 11% of people switching from pro-evolution to anti-evolution. In a 2009 survey, Harris asked a Gallup-like question, in which only 29% agreed that “Human beings evolved from earlier species,” but in a separate question from the same poll, 53% said that they “believe Charles Darwin’s theory which states that plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time.” Placing the issue in a scientific context, with no overt religious context, yields higher support for evolution.

    The National Science Board’s biennial report on Science and Engineering Indicators includes a survey on science literacy which, since the early 1980s, has asked if people agree that “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” About 46% of the American public consistently agree with that option, about the same number who back the middle option in Gallup’s surveys.

    Clearly, people respond to these subtle shifts in how the question is framed, taking a harder stance toward human evolution than to the idea that animals and plants evolve, and stepping away from evolution if it is pitched in opposition to religion. Pollster George Bishop surveyed the diversity of survey responses in 2006 and concluded: “All of this goes to show how easily what Americans appear to believe about human origins can be readily manipulated by how the question is asked.”


    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 1:55 PM PaulK has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 2:34 PM Phat has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13228
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 11 of 95 (820561)
    09-22-2017 2:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
    09-22-2017 2:23 PM


    Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 2:23 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Phat, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 AM PaulK has responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9891
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 12 of 95 (820605)
    09-24-2017 10:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
    09-22-2017 2:34 PM


    Evidence versus Subjective experience
    PaulK writes:

    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.

    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.

    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 2:34 PM PaulK has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2017 11:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2017 12:00 PM Phat has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13228
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 13 of 95 (820606)
    09-24-2017 11:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
    09-24-2017 10:56 AM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    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.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Phat, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5101
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 14 of 95 (820608)
    09-24-2017 12:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
    09-24-2017 10:56 AM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Phat, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Phat, posted 09-25-2017 4:18 AM Tangle has responded
     Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 5:44 AM Tangle has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9891
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 15 of 95 (820659)
    09-25-2017 4:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
    09-24-2017 12:00 PM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    Tangle writes:

    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.

    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.

    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2017 12:00 PM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 4:49 AM Phat has responded

      
    1
    234567Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017