Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[Bombila]

That works fine as well. Anything you like, as long as the Lord is not in red undies.

I'd just as soon not see anyone in long red undies, tbh.

If my scenario was right, though, we have Jesus' followers attributing to him a magical ability, and Jesus letting them think they're right. Unless you think he also believed it himself. Which brings up possibilities I'm not permitted to discuss on CF.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

Is still your opinion since you are yet to present evidence to quantify it.

 

[Hentenza]

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

It doesn't. Engineering is largely mathematical.

 

[Hespera]

They leave Southampton, travel across the Atlantic and land at Plymouth.

What are the chances of that?

It reminds me of William the Bastard fighting King Harold at a place called, would you believe, Battle.

Not to mention the Duke of Wellington fighting Napolean at a village in the middle of nowhere, which just happened to be named after his favourite railway station.

My daughter just reminded me of another one. Tobias Furneaux sailed right round the world, only to land at the Furneaux Islands.

And they say there is no God.

and Lou Gehrig! Look what happened to him!

 

[Hentenza]

I think my definition is exactly right on with regard to those areas that you dont apply any intellectual standards. Belief in the supernatural, and emotion as a basis for faith being good examples. How do you apply intellectual standards to the study of something that cant be cetected or in any way shown to exist? (not meaning faith, whatever that is exactly, it does seem to exist)

And again, its not 'immediate" or "automatic" rejection of the supernatural!!!!! It is a what, was it you said, judicial weighing of evidence? Zero evidence means I dont believe it till I see evidence!

That would basically mean that you do not believe in any singular event that has ever happened. Curious.

 

[Catherineanne]

I suppose you will only cite the effects of 'The Fall', but nature provides some pretty horrific examples of creation in the form of parasites, prey animals eaten alive by predators, natural poisons which cause the eater to die in agony, and so on.

I've always thought it far easier to consider the possibility of a benevolent God if you admit to evolution being the method of creation. Lets the deity off the hook for a lot of dismal realities.

Actually it doesn't let God off the hook at all, because if he is there, he chose the evolution route, and he allows whatever it entails to happen.

The examples you cite are certainly a problem when considering a benevolent God. But there are also indicators of that benevolence to be found. When an animal suffers a sudden trauma, the effect of the release of adrenaline means that they do not feel the pain we would expect them to feel. If they survive, the pain comes perhaps an hour or so later.

Similarly, even without trauma, a dying person very commonly experiences a release of endorphins to make the process of dying one of relative ease. To me these are evidence of a benevolence within nature which is not explained by evolution. Evolution might care about how we are born, and how we live, but why should it decide that a painless death is preferable to a painful one? (Sorry for the personalisation; you can tell I am no scientist.)

But there are still many questions, of course. Spiders, for one. Nasty things, if you happen to be smaller than they are.

 

[Catherineanne]

and Lou Gehrig! Look what happened to him!

Something happened to Lou Gehrig???

Had to check out who he was. Poor soul. What a terrible thing to happen!

 

[Hentenza]

Personally, I find 'barking mad' and 'sane' much more meaningful as categories.

As categories for what?

 

[Hespera]

Who says there is no evidence? I see plenty of evidence for a creator in nature.

I guess I dont l\know what you mean by creation or creationism. There are so many schools of thought, so ..... can you explain what you mean?

And what would be an example of evidence for a creator?

 

[AV1611VET]

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 disagree with this --- in fact --- I hold both views simultaneously.

And, no offense, guys, but if you want to talk about some kind of cause-and-effect relationship between YEC and IQ, I can, speaking from over 3 years of experience here, honestly say that I've talked to some pretty smart cookies here that still cannot grasp the concepts of Creationism; either intellectually, or spiritually --- let alone such doctrines as Dispensation Theology.

Many times (and again, I mean no offense), I have /thread thinking to myself, "Where do these guys get their brains?"

If I wanted to make someone feel smarter, I'd recommend they spend a day here with some of you "scientists".

As I'm fond of saying: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

And you "intellects" are living proof.

 

[Hentenza]

Certainly. Any particular hypothesis regarding earthly abiogenesis would be utterly shaken by the discovery of extraterrestrial eukaryotes.

Why? Where not other worlds part of the universe?

 

[Hespera]

That would basically mean that you do not believe in any singular event that has ever happened. Curious.

Not beyond curious how you ever came to that conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the risk of sounding intellectual, there's no such thing as abiogenesis.

 

[Hentenza]

I suppose you will only cite the effects of 'The Fall', but nature provides some pretty horrific examples of creation in the form of parasites, prey animals eaten alive by predators, natural poisons which cause the eater to die in agony, and so on.

I've always thought it far easier to consider the possibility of a benevolent God if you admit to evolution being the method of creation. Lets the deity off the hook for a lot of dismal realities.

Why would I cite the fall when discussing animal behavior? The fall technically only affected man not animals.

BTW- the discussion that I am having relates to the topic of this thread which is creation. Evolution does not address origins.

 

[Hespera]

Why would I cite the fall when discussing animal behavior? The fall technically only affected man not animals.

BTW- the discussion that I am having relates to the topic of this thread which is creation. Evolution does not address origins.

This is what is so confusing about trying to find out what Christians are talking about! I have been told, and read here any number of times that "the fall" is what kicked the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the lions started eating the lambs, etc. Now it didnt affect the animals at all? Sheesh.

 

[Hentenza]

I guess I dont l\know what you mean by creation or creationism. There are so many schools of thought, so ..... can you explain what you mean?

And what would be an example of evidence for a creator?

Well, I believe that the casualty argument does posit a cause and the cause must be uncaused. My "leap" of faith is to believe that the Christian God is that uncaused cause. I also believe that the intricate and complicated nature of organisms rule out a chance event as the original cause.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what is so confusing about trying to find out what Christians are talking about! I have been told, and read here any number of times that "the fall" is what kicked the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the lions started eating the lambs, etc. Now it didnt affect the animals at all? Sheesh.

There were lions in Eden?

Were you there?

 

[Hentenza]

Not beyond curious how you ever came to that conclusion.

Just because from our conversation I see that you view evidence as repeatable which negates evidence that is not. If I am wrong here please correct me.

 

[Bombila]

This is what is so confusing about trying to find out what Christians are talking about! I have been told, and read here any number of times that "the fall" is what kicked the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the lions started eating the lambs, etc. Now it didnt affect the animals at all? Sheesh.

Exactly. The problem is that there are so many different shades of belief among Christians that pinning a group of creationists down is like bailing a boatload of half-set jello. They all settle on different degrees of belief in what we see as natural. There's no telling, until you've talked with them a long time, where their beliefs will diverge from your own naturalism into a refusal to accept that God could possibly have done whatever-it-is that way.

 

[Hespera]

Well, I believe that the casualty argument does posit a cause and the cause must be uncaused. My "leap" of faith is to believe that the Christian God is that uncaused cause. I also believe that the intricate and complicated nature of organisms rule out a chance event as the original cause.

Too may causes, original causes and uncaused causes for me, sorry. That makes no sense to me.

As for "chance" would you think that the intricate pattern of a watershed, all mathematical and highly structured, is that a chance event? Likewise many another highly ordered but non living thing?

To me the are the logical, inevitable consequence of energy matter and the laws that govern them.

And cause wise, we have the problem of what caused god and caused him to know how to do all this stuff. But thats going too far for this thread.