Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[Hentenza]

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.

Evolution does not posit origins.

 

[atomweaver]

No, that would be opinion.

Fact; there are about 700 active creationists with scientific credentials in the US (not all of which are in relevant fields; many engineers and doctors), whereas there are about a half-million practicing life scientists for whom the theory of evolution informs/contributes to/directs their daily workload. as a percentage of the workforce, WilliamduBois' "almost none" is an accurate assessment of the situation.

 

[Hespera]

You said:



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.

It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.

So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.

If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.

"Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.


The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.

As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.

Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?

 

[redwards]

And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?

I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.

Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.

 

[atomweaver]

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.

There isn't any scientific theory of "origins"; abiogenesis is a field of investigation in its infancy, and doesn't rise to the standard of being a scientific theory by any means. , right back at ya...

Again with the broad brush. I am a creationist. I hold to the OEC view.

So, then... do you find that YEC is factually wrong?

 

[Catherineanne]

I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?

In my experience of talking with fundamentalists, I have found that their tendency to polarise debate into two extremes, with no middle ground, seriously inhibits any kind of intellectual consideration of alternative options.

In a sense they are digital people (ie on or off); others are either in or out, black or white, saved or damned, and they seem to have no doubt of their own ability to determine which is which. Fundamentalists KNOW. And in knowing, they have no need to find out any more. The digital approach says we know enough, and we can close this investigation and call it complete. Case closed. Debate over. Pack up and go home.

What education provides, imo, is an understanding that the more we find out, the less we actually can claim to know. Every question answered raises another ten questions, and so we go on, ever deeper into the world and all that it contains. Such behaviour is what I would regard as analogue (ie continuous movement). Not I know and then stop, but I don't know, so I find out, then there is more I don't know, so I find out again, and then there is more I don't know; a continuous flow of learning and asking and learning more.

This questioning is mistakenly taken for uncertainty, when actually it isn't. The certainty is in the search, and in never being satisfied that now we know enough, and need not find out more.

Therefore is in the interest of creationists to inhibit the asking of questions and the finding of answers. Every new set of data requires a new layer to the ego defenses surrounding their own existing, but buried, doubts, and that entails a lot of hard work.

 

[Hentenza]

It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.

Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.

So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.

So have I.

If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.

I am yet to fully understand human pride.

"Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.

Many have.

The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.

I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.

As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.

You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.

Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.

All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.

 

[Hespera]

And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?

This is not about "intellectual capacity" if by that you mean intelligence.

This is what "intellectual" means...

Definitions of intellectual on the Web:

• of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
• a person who uses the mind creatively
• cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
• An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons.

There is nothing "rational" about faith, or OEC for that matter.

It isnt necessary to be lack intellectual capacity to believe in such things, its just necessary to avoid thinking too hard. The appeal is to the emotions, not to intellect.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.

You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....

Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.

Evolution does not posit origins.

 

[Hespera]

Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.

So have I.

I am yet to fully understand human pride.

Many have.

I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.

You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.

All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.

Ok then prove there is no bigfoot. You know what I meant.

As for what you said about theories....

Theories are based on data, and subject to falsification.

The problem for creationism to even qualify as a theory is that it
a) has not data
b) is magic-based and as such not subject to falsification.

If you want to use the reasonable doubt model, i have reasonable doubts about creationism since it has no data to confirm it. Evolution has a real edge there!

I also doubt the existence of other things for which there is no evidence and no way to detect their existence.

 

[Hespera]

You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....


Evolution does not posit origins.

And back at you.... I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.

 

[Hentenza]

This is not about "intellectual capacity" if by that you mean intelligence.

This is what "intellectual" means...

Definitions of intellectual on the Web:

• of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
• a person who uses the mind creatively
• cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
• An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons.

There is nothing "rational" about faith, or OEC for that matter.

It isnt necessary to be lack intellectual capacity to believe in such things, its just necessary to avoid thinking too hard. The appeal is to the emotions, not to intellect.

I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.

I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.

 

[Split Rock]

Why does it seem that so many fundamentalist Christians are against intellectualism? My father really looks down on universities and anyone who has a bachelor's degree or above. Of course my mom who is about to get her Doctorate in December is pretty upset.
I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?

My experience has been that Fundies, in general, are at least somewhat anti-intelliectual. Science is seen as "Man's Knowledge" and is always trumped by "God's Kowledge," as revealed through scripture. The joke is that both science and The Bible are works of Man. In addition, it is a particular interpretation of scripture that they claim is "God's Word," even though different people can interpret scripture differently.

 

[atomweaver]

You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do.

Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion...

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.

It is perfectly possible to accept scientific findings about evolution, and the age of the earth, and all the knowledge that such findings entail, and still believe that God is the Creator. The theory of evolution does not talk of the Creator, only of the processes involved in the development of life.

In other words, not all Christians find it necessary to make an arbitrary and false distinction between science and faith. Some of us are happy to accept both for what they are, and to allow God to be rather more impressive than the Bible suggests.

Any God could make an earth centred universe in six days. To me, it takes a far more impressive God, with an infinite amount of patience, to spend 12 billion years (?) on it, and then say to Moses, 'Just call it a week; that's close enough.'

 

[redwards]

You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion.

I used it twice, the first time sarcastically, and the second time as the barest of admissions that it's not technically impossible for an eminent scientist to be a creationist, though I sincerely doubt that one could maintain a position of eminence after making such a claim. Having never heard of one, despite a familiarity with scientists in general, I can concluded that the incidence is exceedingly rare if it exists at all, and would not disturb the results of these studies, which in any case extend far beyond simply cataloging scientists.

While statistics demonstrate that believers are less intelligent than non-believers, there is every reason to conclude that creationists are a still less intelligent subset of believers. However, we need not make that conclusion to recognize that, creationists being a subset of believers and not of non-believers, the original results will still apply to them.

So no, it's not simply my opinion.

I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....

Than those that do what?

Evolution does not posit origins.

No, indeed it doesn't, but 'creationism' commonly presents itself as an alternative to evolution, and not simply to abiogenesis.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.

I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.

Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.

God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.

 

[atomweaver]

I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.

I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.

If it is tightly woven, please tell us how does the supernatural interact with/affect engineering?

 

[Split Rock]

I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.

Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.

God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.

I have to disagree with you here. Supernatural means "beyond nature." Unless Jesus used a natural mechanism to turn water into wine (much like winemakers use natural processes to turn fruit juice into wine), then what he did was "supernatural." I am unaware of any natural process that can turn pure water into wine. This is what Jesus was reported to do.