Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5513 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 16 of 142 (500702)
03-01-2009 10:22 PM


I find a lot of similarities between your "fundies" and the atheistic evolutionists. For the most part they both come at you trying to convince you that their view is right rather than considering new ideas. They both get defensive if you counter their arguments. They both have a limited openness to new ideas. It is my opinion that there is little use in trying to convince either side. No matter what evidence you bring forward, the fundamental Christian or the fundamental atheist with view it through their own set of glasses and block out things that are contrary to their own opinion. You can't change anyone's mind. They must change it themselves.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 03-01-2009 11:05 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 8:55 AM alaninnont has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 142 (500706)
03-01-2009 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:22 PM


quote:
I find a lot of similarities between your "fundies" and the atheistic evolutionists.
And where do theistic evolutionists fit in?
quote:
No matter what evidence you bring forward, the fundamental Christian or the fundamental atheist with view it through their own set of glasses and block out things that are contrary to their own opinion.
I guarantee that every atheist here would be absolutely delighted if you were to present evidence contrary to their beliefs. Please, feel free to begin a thread dedicated to evidence against an atheist or evolutionist point of view. I count myself in both camps, and assure you that I will examine any such evidence that you provide and block nothing out.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2208 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 18 of 142 (500707)
03-01-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
02-28-2009 8:47 PM


Re: A Fundy View
quote:
In my opinion if you guys can present evidence of transmutation you can begin to get to fundies.
I must respectfully disagree with ICANT. In my experience, scientific evidence alone is not very effective. Most non-experts cannot objectively weigh the evidence, so they must defer to experts. Christians tend to trust the Christian "experts" like ICR and AIG, because they share the same worldview.
I believe the big barriers for Christians are not scientific, but philosophical and theological. It is a worldview issue. Most Christians are aware of Dawkins and his type, who conflate the science of evolution with an atheistic worldview. Most are not able to discern the difference between science and philosophy (worldview). Thus evolution appears to be an atheistic, anti-Christian position. If it is perceived as anti-Christian, most Christians will strongly oppose it. Dawkins' position is counterproductive.
Here are some ideas for dealing with "fundies" (note: I am a conservative Evangelical Christian, but not a "fundie"):
1) Someone like Francis Collins and his book "The Language of God" is helpful. Collins shows that the science of evolution is NOT inherently atheistic or anti-Christian, but can be incorporated in a Christian worldview. This eliminates the main concern of Christians, that evolution is anti-God. (There are also many other Christians who take a "theistic evolution" position who have written on this topic.)
2) I find it helpful to distinguish between science and philosophy/worldview. I point out that the atheistic worldview is NOT a "scientific" position, contrary to Dawkins. It is philosophy/theology, which science cannot speak to one way or the other.
3) I am convinced that fundies operate from some faulty theological assumptions. It is usually counter-productive to point this out directly, but I have gotten fairly positive responses by teaching good, orthodox theology directed to these points. (It would require some theological credentials and commonality with your audience to have any effect doing this.)
The theological errors that I see are:
a) a quasi-gnostic view of nature; Bible is "spiritual" and "good", nature is "physical" and "bad". I counter this with Ps 19 and the ancient "two books" or "dual revelation" theological perspective (God reveals truth through both nature and Scripture; both are trustworthy.)
b) a quasi-desitic view of nature; the universe is like a clock or machine which runs independently of God. Fundies have the idea that natural explanations somehow "explain away" God's involvement in events. I counter this with Ps 104, Job 38-42, Col 1:17, and Heb 1:3. The biblical perspective is that the universe is contingent; its existence is dependent every second on God's active upholding of it. Hence, God is just as involved in events which occur according to natural processes as those which are miracles.
c) a quasi-docetic view of Scripture; Scripture is fully divine but not human. I would try to teach orthodox theology here (Jesus is both fully God and fully man; Scripture is likewise both fully divine and fully human.) If one thinks through the human aspects of Scripture, he will realize that the biblical authors may have had limited or mistaken ideas about their world (flat earth, solid firmament, etc.). The Bible's infallible, inerrant theological message would have been accommodated to this limited, mistaken perspective of the human authors. So we must distinguish between what the Bible is actually TEACHING from what is simply the cultural background of the authors.
I tend to focus more on the age of the earth/universe than on evolution with "fundies", but I've found these three approaches to be more effective than discussing the scientific data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 8:47 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 19 of 142 (500708)
03-02-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:07 PM


flat earth?
Just curious as to where in the Bible it is taught that the earth is flat? I never saw that before. References to the four corners of the earth are speaking about the compass of the earth-north, south, east and west. I can actually give you a biblcal reference that refers to the earth as a sphere. Of course, there was no Hebrew word for sphere at the time, but we can obviously see from this verse in Isaiah that this author did not see the earth as flat.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Alot of Scripture is poetic and although it may seem like the authors were saying the earth is flat, I don't think they were. Today we often speak about the sun rising. But does the sun actually do any rising? No. The earth is rotating. Does that mean that those who write about beautiful sunrises don't get it and actually believe that the sun rises?
Edited by Kelly, : spelling error
Edited by Kelly, : spelling error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:07 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 1:21 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 1:47 AM Kelly has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9272
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 20 of 142 (500710)
03-02-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:32 AM


Read the thread
There have been many posts already that show where the bible says such a thing. Read the posts then come back with a question or some sort of argument to present other evidence.
Edit - I assumed he had posted to the flat earth thread. I didn't really pay attention. I Just realized after I read Huntard's post what thread this was actually in.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:32 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 142 (500711)
03-02-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:32 AM


Re: flat earth?
Helo Kelly, welcome to EvC.
I'd take that topic to this tread
It's about the bible and a flat Earth.
Since it's off topic here I won't discuss it any further. However I would like to point out that a circle IS flat.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:32 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:18 AM Huntard has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 142 (500730)
03-02-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:22 PM


While I am not an atheist, I do accept the theory of evolution, and I, too, am fairly inflexible about requiring solid objective evidence for theories I accept.
Requiring evidence in support of accepted theory has nothing to do with atheism or theism. It's just science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 23 of 142 (500739)
03-02-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
03-02-2009 1:47 AM


Re: flat earth?
Thanks for your reply, Huntard.
I thought my question was valid in this thread since it is brought up in the original post by shalamabobbi.
So are you saying that the prophet Isaiah thought that the earth was a flat circle? That seems funny to me. Why would he think that? Did he have an aerial view? It would be an unusual conclusion especially considering that other prophets described the earth as having corners.
Edited by Kelly, : spelling correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 1:47 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 10:39 AM Kelly has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 142 (500743)
03-02-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Kelly
03-02-2009 10:18 AM


Re: flat earth?
Hello again Kelly,
Like I said it's off topic here, let's take it to this thread.
We can discuss it in there, so as not to derail this thread.
Make a post in there, and I'll give you my reply.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:18 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:15 PM Huntard has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 25 of 142 (500756)
03-02-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
03-01-2009 1:35 PM


Re: A Fundy View
Looking back at my OP I see I really didn't leave a venue for participation by ICANT and those who reject the ToE. And yet it is those who reject that theory that this thread is about. How to rid ourselves of the problem of the need to deny reality. So here is a way for ICANT to contribute.
What if you received this "sufficient proof" that the ToE were true beyond any doubt. How does this affect your theology? Do you arrive at a situation where you have to abandon your faith utterly and convert to atheism, or do you modify your theology to allow for the facts of science? Again please do not argue the evidence for the ToE, this is an 'imagination' inquiry for you.
As an aside, do you preach that the ToE is false from your pulpit? Do you lay this irreconcilable burden upon your congregation so that you will not be alone? Or do you let the matter rest with them to decide upon individually? Thanks.
(edited to correct spelling)
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2009 1:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:06 PM shalamabobbi has replied
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 03-02-2009 8:29 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 26 of 142 (500767)
03-02-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by shalamabobbi
03-02-2009 11:18 AM


That modification has already occured
It is called theistic evolution, where the believer compromises his faith in order to be in harmony with the evolutionary science he has been indoctrinated with all his life. But this is not necessary. We are not rejecting microevolution. We agree that there is great variety and diversity among species and within species. We disagree at the point where it is claimed that one species has morphed into an entirely new species. Also, we don't teach science in church any more than we should teach religion in a science class.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 11:18 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 1:14 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 3:51 PM Kelly has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5572 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 27 of 142 (500769)
03-02-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
03-02-2009 10:39 AM


Too big a thread
Thanks again Huntard,
But that thread seems far too big for me. I was really just questioning shalamabobbi's claim that the Bible taught a flat earth. He made that claim in his opening remarks in this thread, stating that it was pretty much a declared fact as supposedly proven in that other thread. But I just wanted a quick response from him/her. I know that the Bible does not teach a flat earth. I have been a student of theology for many years. In the same way that we do not mean to say that the sun rises when we write about sunrises, the authors of Scripture were not declaring that the earth was flat in their poetic wording either.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 10:39 AM Huntard has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 28 of 142 (500775)
03-02-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stagamancer
03-01-2009 3:42 PM


Adults set in their ways?
Thanks Stagamancer,
A few thoughts about those adults. Not all are set in their ways with regards to the ToE. Some simply have not given it any thought. I for instance hated biology in high school and managed to steer clear of it afterwards. It had more to do with my aversion to the complexities of the subject matter. On the other hand I loved physics. I am fascinated by animal learning and would love to work in that area. But back to those adults who don't know the details about the ToE but whose world view is not threatened by it. They will accept the evidence currently available when presented with it IMO.
Maybe an idea would be to put together some targeted collection of current evidence in a presentation that could be given at the school level - a special parent teacher conference. The idea would be to get the community behind teaching the ToE. If we can eliminate the scenario where the children get taught one thing at school but hear scepticism at home that would help quite a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stagamancer, posted 03-01-2009 3:42 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Stagamancer, posted 03-02-2009 1:11 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4992 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 29 of 142 (500778)
03-02-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by shalamabobbi
03-02-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Adults set in their ways?
A few thoughts about those adults. Not all are set in their ways with regards to the ToE. Some simply have not given it any thought.
I completely agree. To make any blanket statement about any group of people is patently false. But, while there are people who just haven't given it thought, my point was more that the root of the problem stems mostly from an inability on the part of many people to think critically and make their own decision. Surely, there are some adults who could learn to do this, but it is easiest and most important at a young age. And, yes it's also true that if children learn about evolution at school, but hear skepticism at home, it may make it more difficult, but again, if you teach children to question authority, both the teacher and the parents, then I think they have a much better chance of coming to a rational conclusion in the long run. Sure, a 1st grader may still just believe what their parents say no matter what, but if taught to think critically, by the time their adolescents they will probably figure things out for themselves.
Of course, I'm no psychologist, and this could be total crap.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 12:38 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2926 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 30 of 142 (500779)
03-02-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:06 PM


Re: That modification has already occured
Hi Kelly,
I think the evidence for macro evolution is there as well. ERV patterns are pretty conclusive in that regard especially when considered along with Chromosome 2 fused in humans from two identical chromosomes in our cousins.
The problem with accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is you are left with a model of God mechanistically creating or transplanting life forms over vast amounts of time. For the vast majority of that time nothing much is accomplished by God other than filling the earth with single celled life forms. Then the Cambrian explosion occurs and with what follows taking a much smaller percentage of the whole time available. Also most of this life perishes from extinction. So the idea of micro-evolution without macro-evolution does not make much sense when viewing the data. If you disagree with an old earth, please see RAZD's thread, a collection of independent physical data that correlate with one another about the great age of the earth. If you need help locating it let me know.
The flat earth thread is where to raise your objections to a flat earth. I referred to it to state what I had learned from the observed participation of other posters some of whom are able to cope with a fallible bible and keep their theology intact while others find it impossible to do so. That was the reason for the remark in the OP. I do not wish to debate that issue in this thread.
If you do not accept the ToE completely, then this thread for you is about how accepting the entire theory, macro as well as micro, would affect your current theology. Would you modify it or feel that atheism was the only viable alternative left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:06 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:27 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024