Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
What I said, anyway, was not about "just because dont believe as".
I wonder if you think my description of fundamentalist thinking was wrong?
Please explain if so.
You said:
One mindset seems to be to accept on faith, and that is a praiseworthy virtue. To question is a sin. Doubt is weakness. Changing your mind is death to the immortal soul. The devil is the one who generates any seemingly contrary information. Knowledge comes straight from the supernatural, not from hard work and study.
A couple of points:
1. To question is not a sin.
2. Doubt is not weakness. I doubt every day and I'll wager that so do you.
3. Changing our mind about a point of origins does not necessarily means death to the immortal soul. This is evidenced by the different orthodox views of origins. For example, YEC vs OEC.
4. It is our belief that the devil generates information that separates God from man, therefore, information should be carefully studied.
5. Knowledge does not come straight from the supernatural. God gave us two revelations, special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (nature). We simply don't automatically discount the supernatural like non believers do.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
Seriously now:
There are smart people that are religious. There are smart people that are creationists. There are almost no creationists that are smart and knowledgeable in a field that relates to the evolution/creationism-debate.
That's not an opinion: that's fact.
__________________ William "BBR" duBois
"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
-Edmond de Goncour
As an aside, it's not difficult to demonstrate statistically that belief is inversely correlated with intelligence, but I suspect that's not a demonstration you'd be interested in seeing.
LOL!!!! I guess your demonstration will be adversely affected by how some relatively quantify "intellect".
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
Seriously now:
There are smart people that are religious. There are smart people that are creationists. There are almost no creationists that are smart and knowledgeable in a field that relates to the evolution/creationism-debate.
That's not an opinion: that's fact.
No, that would be opinion.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
1. To question is not a sin.
2. Doubt is not weakness. I doubt every day and I'll wager that so do you.
3. Changing our mind about a point of origins does not necessarily means death to the immortal soul. This is evidenced by the different orthodox views of origins. For example, YEC vs OEC.
Your acceptance of both OEC and YEC as being equally valid is very indicative of anti-intellectualism. The faith that informs each position matters more to you than the facts.
An intellectual would recognize that if two people have a different idea about the age of the Earth, one being ~10,000 years, and one being ~4.5 billion years, they cannot both be right.
4. It is our belief that the devil generates information that separates God from man, therefore, information should be carefully studied.
5. Knowledge does not come straight from the supernatural. God gave us two revelations, special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (nature). We simply don't automatically discount the supernatural like non believers do.
It goes beyond that, though. Creationists more often than not hold their interpretation of special revelation, as you define it, to be more valid than anyone else's investigation of general revelation; "an act of hubris", as the Clergy Letter Projectso eloquently puts it.
The "opinion" part would be quantifying "almost none". Let me put it otherwise:
The very large majority of scientists with relevant degrees in fields related to evolution, do not find there is a scientific controversy surrounding the theory of evolution.
I'll let you google "project steve" if you think that's opinion.
__________________ William "BBR" duBois
"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
-Edmond de Goncour
Its not about alignment of beliefs. Its about the willingness to maul mundane facts and observations in an attempt to get them to align with established religious notions; you cannot be intellectually dishonest, and an intellectual at the same time.
But yeah, anti-intellectualism is a broader conservative phenomenon, than it is something exclusive to the Christian fundamentalists...
Hey! dont be picking on "conservatives" with that broad brush!
There is nothing inherently religious about being socially conservative. Let alone anti intellectual.
We can easily enough pull up a lot of people who attach to the liberal banner, who are far from intellectual or sensible in any way.
LOL!!!! I guess your demonstration will be adversely affected by how some relatively quantify "intellect".
One might think. Fortunately, the evidence is stable across a very, very broad range of different interpretations of that attribute, from scholastic test scores of numerous varieties, participation in various scholastic fields, admission to prominent universities, eminence of a variety of scientists, mentions in catalogs of noted intellectuals, membership in august organizations and, of course, the traditional IQ test.
There have been dozens of tests on this subject, utilizing a wide variety of metrics and all with the same result.
Your acceptance of both OEC and YEC as being equally valid is very indicative of anti-intellectualism. The faith that informs each position matters more to you than the facts.
An intellectual would recognize that if two people have a different idea about the age of the Earth, one being ~10,000 years, and one being ~4.5 billion years, they cannot both be right.
I do not accept both. Again, you are defining intellectualism by whatever floats your boat. After all, is not like there is only one theory of origins in the scientific community.
It goes beyond that, though. Creationists more often than not hold their interpretation of special revelation, as you define it, to be more valid than anyone else's investigation of general revelation; "an act of hubris", as the Clergy Letter Projectso eloquently puts it.
Again with the broad brush. I am a creationist. I hold to the OEC view. I hold that the accounts of Genesis are historical. But that's just me.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
Linear Mode
