Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

Fervent said:

Considering I'm in a seminary program I think I'm in a better position to understand what "sophisticated" theology entails than someone not trained in it. You seem to have skipped over the central implication of my question to you, which is one of the explanatory gaps of physicalism(and its by no means a minor one) in the question of "how do our intentions become our actions?" If all is physical, or irrational laws govern the whole universe then our intentions are vapors and we are simply passengers in a body observing but not having any impact on what we are observing. I have a strong reason to believe in free will, in fact I see no way to reasonably doubt it. Yet that is exactly what physicalist theories require I do.

Click to expand...

I consider the possibility that free will is an illusion, but I have no idea, and importantly, I don't have any control of whether it is true or not.

If you want to understand the connections between intents and actions try the theory of mind, neurobiology, psychology, etc. rather than decrying "physicalism" (sic).

As far a the nature of the physical universe and the laws that govern it, I suggest that you are out of your depth as I have forgotten more of what I learned in graduate school that you apparently understand now.

Having encountered more "sophisticated theology" in the last few years than the prior few decades, I must say I am not impressed with their reasoning or intellectual prowess. It is a rather sad thing to see. Is their anything more useless than theology? (I know of nothing so far...)

Fervent said:

I don't think you realize just how prescient your words are.

Click to expand...

That is one way to look at it another is that in both examples incorporated natural means, the row boat, cruise ship, helicopter and symptoms are natural. Similarly many Christians believe God provided natural laws, i.e. common descent, etc to do the grunt work of evolution so we wouldn't need to depend on miracles

Sidon said:

And regarding 'homophobia".
I dont have that, i have homoNausea.
All real Christians do.

Click to expand...

Well you learn some things in middle age. I didn't even realize I was supposed to despise "the gays" back in my Christian days. (Frankly they never talked about it from the pulpit. Probably trying not to draw attention to themselves.) I was aware, however, that I should condemn all those who had divorced and remarried as committers of adultery who were living in sin.

Subduction Zone said:

It appears that you do not understand what assumptions are.

No "assumptions" of the sort that you seem to think exist are needed. The simple fact is that science works. If you can find anything that comes even close to the scientific method when it comes to performance then you might have a point. But sadly you contradict yourself just by communicating here.

Click to expand...

Are you saying science begins as a blank slate? Makes no claims from which to proceed in its investigation? What do you mean "works?" Does it predict things that are mechanical in nature? Absolutely, but does that mean the universe is fundamentally mechanical? I have no issues with the method, what I have a problem with is the transmission from tenative, contingent claims to metaphysical truth which is the move that atheists regularly attempt to make.

VirOptimus said:

How bigoted.

Click to expand...

Because of the laugh? or the facepalm?

Frank Robert said:

That is one way to look at it another is that in both examples incorporated natural means, the row boat, cruise ship, helicopter and symptoms are natural. Similarly many Christians believe God provided natural laws, i.e. common descent, etc to do the grunt work of evolution so we wouldn't need to depend on miracles

Click to expand...

I have no qualms with theistic evolution, as my objections to the theory of evolution are primarily theological rather than mechanical. Creationism has no business in a science classroom, but that doesn't mean that we should give exclusive access to naturalism at schools. The issue I have is that there is allowed no serious challenge to reductionist and monist philosophies and students are metaphysics and other philosophical discussion is immediately chased out as sophistry among so-called intellectuals.

pitabread said:

Almost all non-creationists believe that creationism encourages anti-intellectualism, while almost all creationists believe the opposite.

Click to expand...

For that you needed a poll?

VirOptimus said:

The ToE is science, creationism is religion.

Click to expand...

Either that, or creationism is assent to the historical account of how God created the universe as documented in the Bible.

Hans Blaster said:

I consider the possibility that free will is an illusion, but I have no idea, and importantly, I don't have any control of whether it is true or not.

If you want to understand the connections between intents and actions try the theory of mind, neurobiology, psychology, etc. rather than decrying "physicalism" (sic).

As far a the nature of the physical universe and the laws that govern it, I suggest that you are out of your depth as I have forgotten more of what I learned in graduate school that you apparently understand now.

Having encountered more "sophisticated theology" in the last few years than the prior few decades, I must say I am not impressed with their reasoning or intellectual prowess. It is a rather sad thing to see. Is their anything more useless than theology? (I know of nothing so far...)

Click to expand...

I see no coherent way to deny free will. As Christopher Hitchens put it "Of course I believe in free will, boss says I have to." Undermining an actual connection between our intents and our actions puts every single conclusion we make as suspect, because they are not being evaluated for truth but are the result of whatever is dictated by the mechanical laws of the universe. You want me to take atheistic naturalism seriously, it's up to you to provide an method or means by which to accomplish that transmission. I've engaged with philosophy of mind, do you know what they say "Well, that's the "hard problem." Why should I accept that you have sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood(or unlikelihood) of God's existence when you can't even provide me with an answer to such a basic question?

Sidon said:

First you claim, for the 3rd time;....that im building straw-men, tho you have yet to try to offer any evidence to support your innuendo.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that @pitabread made no innuendo. He was quite explicit, noting that you presented a "gross strawman". Your mistake in identifying that as innuendo suggests the possibility that you may be similarily confused about the definition of a strawman argument.

Sidon said:

And regarding 'homophobia".
I dont have that, i have homoNausea.
All real Christians do.

Click to expand...

Well, after that, I'm nauseous too. Would you like to tone down the disgust and the hate and the blatant rejection of some of your fellow Christians, so we can conduct a mature discussion? I'm not hopeful, but it would be nice to give it a try.

pitabread said:

"Creation" isn't a scientific theory though. It's a religious belief (or group of religious beliefs).

Click to expand...

So you say.

Fervent said:

I see no coherent way to deny free will. As Christopher Hitchens put it "Of course I believe in free will, boss says I have to."

Click to expand...

It was actually "I don't have a choice." (That is, he lacks the free will to object to free will. Pithy.)

I'm not denying free will, I just don't see the hard evidence that it exists. I certainly feel like I have free will, but that can't be proven.

Fervent said:

Undermining an actual connection between our intents and our actions puts every single conclusion we make as suspect, because they are not being evaluated for truth but are the result of whatever is dictated by the mechanical laws of the universe.

Click to expand...

Our intents (from our minds) become action by the transmission of signals down neurons whether the mind is a separate substance or the by-product of brain activity.

Fervent said:

You want me to take atheistic naturalism seriously, it's up to you to provide an method or means by which to accomplish that transmission. I've engaged with philosophy of mind, do you know what they say "Well, that's the "hard problem."

Click to expand...

The existence or non-existence of free will is *not* critical to whether we are subject to the laws of physics or can discover them. Neither is a mechanism for transmitting "will" to action needed for the universe to function. (And "atheistic naturalism" is a weird construct, since an atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in a god. There are no "atheistic" philosophies, it's just a belief state.)

Fervent said:

Why should I accept that you have sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood(or unlikelihood) of God's existence when you can't even provide me with an answer to such a basic question?

Click to expand...

My disdain for creationism and theology doesn't have anything to do my ability to prove the non-existence of your god. I disdained the anti-intellectual creationism long before I stopped believing in your god and I had no use for theology, ever.

I don't think your "basic question" is all that basic, or frankly important, to anything being discussed elsewise.

Hans Blaster said:

It was actually "I don't have a choice." (That is, he lacks the free will to object to free will. Pithy.)

I'm not denying free will, I just don't see the hard evidence that it exists. I certainly feel like I have free will, but that can't be proven.

Click to expand...

Free will is quite easy to prove, and if his point was to deny his ability to decide it is incoherent. If I can accept that the statement "free will does not exist" is true of my own volition, it is false. Now, either I cannot accept that the statement "free will does not exist" by choice, in which case I cannot know it to be true. Or I can accept the statement, in which case I have demonstrated it to be false. So there is no coherent means to hold the position, it is self refuting. That your premises require serious consideration is evidence of their false nature.

Hans Blaster said:

Our intents (from our minds) become action by the transmission of signals down neurons whether the mind is a separate substance or the by-product of brain activity.

Click to expand...

"Minds?" Are you saying the mind is a physical object? The fact that you are distinguishing between "mind" and "brain" rather than simply directly refering to the physical object implies that there is a real distinction. There is no reason to accept it is mere convention, nor does there seem to be a coherent means to think of ourselves as purely physical oobjects.

Hans Blaster said:

The existence or non-existence of free will is *not* critical to whether we are subject to the laws of physics or can discover them. Neither is a mechanism for transmitting "will" to action needed for the universe to function. (And "atheistic naturalism" is a weird construct, since an atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in a god. There are no "atheistic" philosophies, it's just a belief state.)

Hans Blaster said:

My disdain for creationism and theology doesn't have anything to do my ability to prove the non-existence of your god. I disdained the anti-intellectual creationism long before I stopped believing in your god and I had no use for theology, ever.

I don't think your "basic question" is all that basic, or frankly important, to anything being discussed elsewise.

Click to expand...

How can we willingly accept *any* proposition if we lack the ability to impact the outcome in a meaningful sense?

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

"Minds?" Are you saying the mind is a physical object? The fact that you are distinguishing between "mind" and "brain" rather than simply directly refering to the physical object implies that there is a real distinction. There is no reason to accept it is mere convention, nor does there seem to be a coherent means to think of ourselves as purely physical oobjects.

Click to expand...

I did not make a claim about the nature of mind in the previous post, but, no I don't think that mind is separate from brain. The idea that "mind" is just something brains do is fully compatible with our extant knowledge.

Hans Blaster said:

I did not make a claim about the nature of mind in the previous post, but, no I don't think that mind is separate from brain. The idea that "mind" is just something brains do is fully compatible with our extant knowledge.

Click to expand...

I recognized the implicit claim, which is why I stated what I did. If we cannot coherently speak of our conscious experience without appeal to "mind" terminology how can we coherently hold that they are the same? The need for the different languages implies a difference.

Hans Blaster said:

I did not make a claim about the nature of mind in the previous post, but, no I don't think that mind is separate from brain. The idea that "mind" is just something brains do is fully compatible with our extant knowledge.

Click to expand...

My primary question got cut off so you may not have seen it. Your position implies that our experience is a result we observe(of brain activity) with no impact from our primary mode of relating(thought). Now, if we have no meaningful impact on the outcome how can we conclude *any* proposition to be true?

Fervent said:

My primary question got cut off so you may not have seen it. Your position implies that our experience is a result we observe(of brain activity) with no impact from our primary mode of relating(thought). Now, if we have no meaningful impact on the outcome how can we conclude *any* proposition to be true?

Click to expand...

This all sounds like mumbo jumbo. My position is that I don't care about philosophy, thought, metaphysics, or theology. If my mind is a product of my brain or something immaterial doesn't matter to the nature of reality and has no impact I can perceive on my understanding of that nature.

As far as I can tell, this whole divergence occurred because I challenged your claim that we couldn't know that physics was regular throughout space and time. It has been tested, repeatedly, in many places and in many times. Physics remains consistent when and where measured. The rational conclusion is that it is effectively consistent everywhere deep into the past.

Hans Blaster said:

One definition of "miracle" is a "suspension of the natural laws", while I don't seriously entertain them, that's not what I am talking about.

I'm talking about the ordinary assumptions of repeatable, natural occurrences that we all rely on.

For example, even if you offer a prayer that you car will start each time you put the key in the ignition, you still put fuel in the tank when it is low instead of expecting that your prayer will keep your car operating without fuel.

If you think this is somehow an irrelevant, mundane, example you are wrong. It is mundane, but it is the uniformity of the physical laws that underlies the functioning of the car, its engine, and its need for fuel.

This is just one of the countless ways we depend everyday on the regularity of the natural "laws" and not supernatural intervention.

Click to expand...

If there is First Cause, and therefore Creation, all things are miracle; what is natural is God-made too. Just a POV shift. I like to think of what people call miracle as 'unusual' —not 'miracle'.

Hans Blaster said:

This all sounds like mumbo jumbo. My position is that I don't care about philosophy, thought, metaphysics, or theology. If my mind is a product of my brain or something immaterial doesn't matter to the nature of reality and has no impact I can perceive on my understanding of that nature.

As far as I can tell, this whole divergence occurred because I challenged your claim that we couldn't know that physics was regular throughout space and time. It has been tested, repeatedly, in many places and in many times. Physics remains consistent when and where measured. The rational conclusion is that it is effectively consistent everywhere deep into the past.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, why are you on a religious forum? What you are arguing for is "positive proof." I suggest you read Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and why "falsifiability" is a more consistent standard. No matter how much positive proof you build, all it (hypothetically) takes is a single counter example to destroy the whole thing. Take, for example, the poll in question. Certainly, there are a lot of creationists who are anti-intellectual. A lot. But I am a creationist, and I think our conversation stands to show I am not opposed to intellectual conversation/topics. Simply because you have no time for philosophy and are content in begging the question doesn't mean philosophy is useless for determining truth, nor is science the only intellectual tool.