Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9021 total)
44 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,630 Year: 276/14,102 Month: 276/294 Week: 32/136 Day: 32/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Marketing Of Christianity
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 616 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 582 of 591 (829937)
03-18-2018 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by dwise1
03-16-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Food For Thought
dwise1 writes:

quote:
There is a very important honest conversation that creationists and non-creationists need to have ... or even just creationists among themselves: just exactly why are creationists doing what they do (including just exactly why they think that Christianity depends so directly and completely on the extraneous claims of YEC) and just exactly what they honestly think the consequences of evolution being true or the earth truly being ancient would be.

But they have had this conversation. For example, Christian creationists have mentioned those specific things many times:

If evolution is true, if the universe is ancient, then that means the Bible (as they understand it) is false.

Why is that not sufficient for you? They have their reasons for believing in god (defined as the being referred to in the Bible) and thus to have that book be disproven means this god they believe in might not exist.

You even refer to this yourself: They don't wish to lose their faith. That, too, has lots of meanings in their eyes (suddenly there's no such thing as "good" or "bad," the people they hate due to their faith-based morality are suddenly equal to them, etc., etc.) but it is something they do not wish to experience.

As for the "honest conversation," that's something you can't force on someone. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. When people are emotionally invested in a position, they don't give it up easily. Pointing out how they are illogically buttressing their arguments isn't going to change their minds in and of itself. They need to be willing to reconsider their position and be happy with their lives afterward, even if that means their lives change.

That isn't easy.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2018 5:37 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by dwise1, posted 03-18-2018 6:01 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 616 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 591 of 591 (829994)
03-19-2018 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by dwise1
03-18-2018 6:01 PM


Re: Food For Thought
dwise1 responds to me:

quote:
But we haven't had the conversation yet.

Why do you think this? On the contrary, I would say that this conversation has been had a long time ago. As mentioned: They have an understanding of how the world is supposed to be that is hung upon the framework of their religion. If it turns out that the world doesn't actually exist that way, then it means their religion is in error. Since they are emotionally invested, they aren't going to give that up easily.

quote:
All that creationists have given us are conclusions, little more than bare assertions. How were those bare-assertion conclusions arrived at?

I think you're referring to a different conversation. I was referring to why and you seem to be referring to how.

quote:
They assume that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive and opposed to each other, so if evolution is true then that proves creation and God wrong. Why? In exactly what ways are they in conflict?

This has long since been answered: God specifically, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully created life in general, species more specifically, and humans most specifically of all. Thus, the current life that we see could not have evolved, especially not humans. The official Catholic statement regarding evolution recognizes this. Pius XII and John Paul II state that humans did evolve...except for their intellect which was a special creation of god. Humans need to be specially created in the image of god or it means the story told in the Bible isn't true and if it isn't true, then the rest of it is suspect and if the rest of it is suspect, perhaps all of it is and if all of it is, then you're believing a lie. This is exactly what you were talking about.

Why isn't that sufficient for you? What more to this "conversation" do you need? Despite your claims that you are "not trying to change a believer's mind," I think you are. You may not necessarily have a specific final goal for them, but you do think that they're wrong and wish to convince them that they are wrong. They have a specific idea (life, particularly human life, was created by an act of god and not evolved) that you wish to change (life, including human life, was evolved). You may have it open-ended ("Who said god couldn't have used evolution to create humanity?") but that doesn't alter the fact that you do seek to change their minds.

They are emotionally invested in their beliefs. As one possible example of such investment, they are worried about going to hell. Doubt is seen as a path to hell and thus, they won't give up their faith easily as the consequence for it is eternal damnation.

This goes back to my non-conversation with Tangle regarding a disproof of "god." You have to define what it is that you mean by "god." If your definition of "god" includes a specific act and that act turns out not to be true, then it necessarily means that said "god" does not exist. You think they can then engage in an ad hoc adjustment of the definition of "god" to not include that act, but they may not be able to consider that. After all, if that definition of "god" turned out to be not true and if they have already discounted all other definitions of "god" (else why fixate on the definition of "god" they already had), then that means god as a concept does not exist: They had the last possible definition and if it falls, there is no way to salvage the concept.

It isn't about you, though. It's about them. This is why I ask why that is not sufficient for you: They have explained themselves. What more do you need unless you are actually seeking to change them despite your protests to the contrary?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by dwise1, posted 03-18-2018 6:01 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021