|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Well, once again we maddening, infuriating, lying, dishonest evolutionists have forced a creationist from the field of battle. He was apparently appalled by our dastardly use of facts and rational argument in defense of reality.
I'll repeat my earlier conclusions regarding the thread's topic, which highlights the term "cult". I don't believe creationism is a cult. But the title also uses the term (removing the highlighting of "cult") "cultural movement". Is creationism a cultural movement? I don't believe so. Creationism quite obviously originated in evangelical Christianity's concern about the potential negative effect of the teaching evolution on their children's faith. But creationism has become a strong religious force within our culture, and creationist views are now strongly reflected in that culture, with roughly half of Americans believing the earth is only 6000 years old. Clearly creationism is so powerful that it has strongly influenced our culture, which is already predominantly Christian in background if not observance. This cultural quality appears to be a passive force. I think that many people who reply in polls that they believe the world is 6000 years old do so just because they're ignorant of science and that's what they were taught in Sunday school, and not out of any strong religious convictions. When push comes to shove at open school board meetings, these same people are either not present or not vocal and are probably open to hearing scientific information. But such is not the case for evangelical Christians. If evangelical Christians were evenly distributed across the country they would not form a majority in any community, but the US has a large and growing Bible belt where such evangelical beliefs dominate, and the concentration gives them great political power because their elected representatives speak for them at both the state and federal level. For example, consider senator Rick Santorum's and representive Mark Souder's spirited defense of IDist Richard Sternberg's misbehavior as editor of a science journal. And so creationists represent a strong anti-science force both within our culture and in our political establishment. At a religious level it has an almost cult-like influence on people that enables them to believe irrational things, at a cultural level it influences what is taught in public schools, and at a political level the laws of our nation can actually be influenced so as to favor creationism. Because science and technology are key elements in maintaining our status as an influential and affluent nation, and because creationism is anti-science, it is a force that we cannot and must not ignore. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Whoah, wait, I just brought up their site and am reminded they do the same thing, trying to bill themselves as some objective arbiters of what they actually consider a non-controversy. at the end of the day, people have to recognize that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective," and objectively there are such things as "right" and "wrong." objectively, one side wins. sorry if this is news to you. but objectively creationism has lost. they have lost the battle scientifically, and they have lost the battle legally. an objective arbiter points out when one side is, in fact, wrong. i'm sorry that the facts come down agreeing with one side over the other. but that's what "objective" means. if you were looking for some place where all beliefs, including wrong ones, are weighted equally, the word you should have looked for was "subjective."
If evolution is so settled and no rational person could dispute it, then there is no point in discussing it you're right. there is no point. why do you?
and the use of 'forum' is disingenuous. no, because people who think like you do exist. the forum exists because the discussion exists -- even if one side is, in fact, wrong. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Despite TheMystic's claim of an education in physics, chemistry and so forth, he declared his anti-science bias right at the outset when he said, "I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'." I found TheMystic's contributions to be incredibly error-filled and full of ad hominem, so I thought a summary in order. I'm primarily doing this to make clear that despite his claims to the contrary, he knew little of evolution, was strongly anti-science, and more than gave as good as he got when it came to personal criticism.
Here I enumerate the many errors, anti-science statements, and expressions of ignorance presented by TheMystic:
And here I enumerate the many content-free accusations of TheMystic:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
23 insults and I was only the focus of one of them?
Clearly, I didn't try hard enough. I pledge to rectify this situation with all haste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Cramer Junior Member (Idle past 6314 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
Most of you pathetic people have nothing to do with whats real in life anymore. For this, I see no pity for you. You are all losers, and deserve the fate you will become of. For none are true, none can be relied upon. I only seek this as a venture to be able to reveal what is really true, what is really real, the destruction of all thats great and pure and happy. The destruction of Christianity.......and the promotion of Darwin's theory of Evolution. The survival of the fittest. Those who are weak, deserve no life, those who are the strongest should be allowed to overtake. Compassion is overrated, for the animals that we are, and will become. Only you have the power to destroy what is really true, that which is really in fact fake. Christianity is a facade of reality.
Let the games begin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
This is no game. You need to read the Forum Guidelines before I ban you for being disruptive. (1 day suspension)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Ah yes... I surely am going to miss that guy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
duf31 Inactive Member |
The destruction of Christianity....... Having just listened to Sam Harris's presentation in the Beyond Belief seminars (great stuff there BTW Percy, and thanks for the links), I have to concede that the fundies just might have a teeny little point here. And if Harris can gratuitiously extrapolate from the undoubted danger posed by fundamnetalists to all non-materialistic belief systems, aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
duf31 writes: The destruction of Christianity....... Having just listened to Sam Harris's presentation in the Beyond Belief seminars (great stuff there BTW Percy, and thanks for the links), I have to concede that the fundies just might have a teeny little point here. Except that the destruction of Christianity is not a goal. What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith. Science, like plumbing and cooking, is not an issue of faith. Fundamentalists should not be lobbying school boards for science class time for their religious views on origins, and their attempts to dress up their views as science and treat science like a marketing campaign is becoming increasingly obnoxious, not to mention increasingly contrary to the traditional Christian principles we in western world hold so dear.
Aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists? Either this is really deep or really misstated. What is the threat of Sam Harris types to science? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists? Likely just misreading. What I believe was being said was Sam Harris = Scientist Sam Harris = Threat All Scientists = Threat.
Percy writes: What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith. I think that really is it in a nutshell. But I also think that there is an even greater problem. The folk we are addressing as a Culture of Ignorance react the same way to issues beyond science. They oppose the general concept of "Knowledge" and believe that access to knowledge must be limited and filtered. I tried to address this sometime ago in a thread Message 1. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AKA Casey Powell and JesusFighter
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
duf31 Inactive Member |
Either this is really deep or really misstated. What is the threat of Sam Harris types to science? OK sorry about this. I meanst Christians not fundamentalists, and the threat is to Christianity, not science.
What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith. As Krause said, its hard not to agree with much of what Harris says. But its also clear that he does not limit his objections to religion to those cases where it conflicts with science: or rather, he denies the possibility of anything that is not science, and therefore leaves no room for belief. Some quotes: "I'm very much a fan of construing the conflict between religion and science in zero-sum terms" "I really think religion is leading us to the edge of something terrible" (equating Catholic fath in transubstantiation to lunacy) "If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or will be coming back to Earth to judge the living and the dead, these beliefs would be part of our scientific description of the Universe. These are claims about Physics, claims about Biology. The only reason that a person needs faith to accept these things is that the evidence for them is remarkably thin. So I really think that religion is the permission to one another to believe things strongly when reasons fail...."(NB: I think he meant to say "when reason fails" here). "There are some people who argue that there is no conflict betweem science and religion. Here is how the trick is done" "The best in us does not require the worst in us. The love of other human beings does not need to be nurtured by delusion, and yet we are hearing continuously from every corner of our culture that delusion is all we have, that delusion deserves our respect, delusion is holy" and later: "How much more science does Francis Collins need to have on board before he doubts that Jesus is the Son of God and will return to save humanity?" Not that I hold any brief for Collins, of course. But I do feel myself under threat from this statement, as I happen to be a scientist who also believes in Christ, although this belief isn't supported in any way by material evidence. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed his presentation as much as I enjoyed Weinberg's and Tyson's. But when even Weinberg feels compelled to say "I'm more sanguine than you about American religion" ... wow, there's a man with an agenda. Edited by duf31, : Correct typo Carroll -> Collins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
According to a truthdig interview, Sam Harris is trying to persuade "the religious-minded people of the world into abandoning faith-based belief systems, which he argues could soon lead us to apocalypse." I think you have him sized up accurately.
But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity. Some scientists, like Lawrence Krauss who you mentioned, believe it is only a matter of education, and perhaps he is right. At least he has a proposed solution. Harris seems to be saying that it isn't just a matter of education, and this view must also be given credence, because, as he points out, a number of the men involved in 9/11 had college degrees. Scientists would be content to leave religion alone if religion would leave them alone, but it doesn't, as the examples of creationism and 9/11 make clear. I fear that world fundamentalism may have wakened a sleeping giant, for secularism is marshaling its forces and becoming organized as never before. Scientists who can work in safety in their labs and travel safely to conferences and rely upon public education to do its job by providing a reliable stream of educated college freshmen could care less about religion (proportional to the level of their own personal religiosity, of course). But scientists who find themselves confronted by an endless stream of freshman with no clue about the unifying principle behind all of biology, or who have to witness their country being drawn into pointless overseas adventures because of overreaction to religious terrorists, or who have to worry about being shot by fundamentalist extremists if they are doctors, can get sort of fed up after a while. I'm sure there will be another significant confrontation in the courtroom between science and creationism sometime within the next 10 years, and I'm betting that this time it will be a doozy. The outcome that I think American evangelicals haven't anticipated is that the more successful the efforts of organizations like ICR and the Discovery Institute, the greater may be the eventual backlash. Potentially you could lose your voice in public education. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity. To narrow things down, later in Beyond Belief Sam clarifies his position as being anti-dogma not anti-religion. It's just that he concentrates on the dangers of dogmatic religion. If religion makes an empirical claim then it should be met with the same criticisms that any other dogma that makes claims. He points out that the empirical claims of nazism (or other dogmas) are handled differently than the empirical claims of religion. Given the right culture, given the right authorities and the right time, the dogmatic claims of nazism becomes dangerous. Likewise, Harris says, with religious claims. At the moment the biggest threat says Harris is the empirical claims of Islam. I'm fairly sure I've put Sam Harris' position correctly forward here. There was a long debate in one of the videos that Richard Dawkins gets involved in about dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
duf31 Inactive Member |
Hope you don't mind me quoting you out of sequence Percy:
When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.
You can say that again.
He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers As any reasonable person would be. But he is equally opposed to those that do neither, and does not present any justification other than that they do not fit into his belief system and therefore should be locked up.
....which he argues could soon lead us to apocalypse End-time prophets are everywhere! Perhaps atheism IS a religion after all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024