My Final Conclusion about Science and Religion

[Praxiteles]

Aeroz, have you met/spoken with Lanakila?

 

[aeroz19]

Aeroz, have you met/spoken with Lanakila?

No, I have never even seen this person on the forum.

 

[aeroz19]

Hope you don't mind if I sign your guestbook aeroz. Thanks for sharing.

Ok, sure, go ahead.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

Lanakila and DoubtingMerle deconverted.

Here is DoubtingMerle's website: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/

 

[Praxiteles]

OK.

It happened a couple of years ago now. Lana was a fundy mod here at CF. She didn't make much of an appearance here in Crevo, but was quite active in Apologetics and other forums. And she was very fundy; at least, so it appeared.

Like you seem to have done, she deconverted reasonably rapidly; she'd had doubts for a long time, but had masked them by becoming as intense as she could with the outward expressions of her faith. Consequently, when her deconversion came it was like a thunderclap. Shocked quite a few here at CF.

I don't bring it up because I think that your story mirrors hers to any great extent; after all, her loss of faith was more on a visceral level than yours appears to have been. (ie. You began with the evidence for naturalistic explanations and went from there). However, I do think that you and she do have much in common is some respects, and since she does still make the occasional appearance on the boards, and if you should see her I reckon you should say hi.

 

[aeroz19]

OK.

It happened a couple of years ago now. Lana was a fundy mod here at CF. She didn't make much of an appearance here in Crevo, but was quite active in Apologetics and other forums. And she was very fundy; at least, so it appeared.

Like you seem to have done, she deconverted reasonably rapidly;

Well, it took me a little less than a year to fully deconvert. I don't consider that rapid.

she'd had doubts for a long time, but had masked them by becoming as intense as she could with the outward expressions of her faith.

Well, if you're comparing that to what I did, it's not exactly the same. I had severe doubts, but still believed what I was saying was 100% true, until I was shown how wrong I was and why.

Consequently, when her deconversion came it was like a thunderclap. Shocked quite a few here at CF.

Mine was a gradual realization with denial.

I don't bring it up because I think that your story mirrors hers to any great extent; after all, her loss of faith was more on a visceral level than yours appears to have been. (ie. You began with the evidence for naturalistic explanations and went from there). However, I do think that you and she do have much in common is some respects, and since she does still make the occasional appearance on the boards, and if you should see her I reckon you should say hi.

I'll say hi to her if I see her.

Some things about it all though were instinctual for me, such as the inability for me to have faith. I only had belief because I thought that there was a good reason for believing in the things that I did, and that one day I would stumble upon the secret reason. And in fact there was no secret reason.

 

[aeroz19]

Lanakila and DoubtingMerle deconverted.

Here is DoubtingMerle's website: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/

I am reading the stuff on the main page and every word is jiving with me.

Oh my, page 2. This guy has it all right here. Wow. Amazing. This must have been a lot of hard work.

 

[Matthew777]

I notice this as an invariable pattern - people who "use to be evolutionists" never really understood evolution to begin with.

Evolution is not important as far as being a salvation issue. As for the question of origins, I would describe myself as a "seeker". I am not willing to accept Darwinian evolution at this time because, quite frankly, that would be quite too easy. I understand that there is a bounty of evidence in support of the theory but I also see valid, religious and non-religious reasons to express doubt.
One question I often ask myself is that if Darwin was right on origins, why did the Bible provide a conflicting Creation account? One cannot so easily dismiss Genesis as mere allegory because then that places the rest of Scripture under suspicion also. There is no reason within the text of Genesis itself, as far as I know, to doubt that it at least attempts to provide an actual history.
For example, the Hebrew "Adam" both means man and is a pun on the ground from which he was formed. If man were not created from the dust of the ground, why would it be alluded to in his name? If we did not come from dust then what meaning is there in "You are dust and to the dust you shall return"? Until I am able to resolve these Scriptural problems and am presented with undeniable scientific evidence, I will not accept Darwinian theory.
Anyways, for the moment, let us put Genesis aside. The fact is that the Gospels provide reliable historical testimony for the life of Christ, His message, His trials, and His resurrection. This is why whenever a Christian Biblical scholar debates a skeptical scholar, the Christian almost always wins. Just think of William Lane Craig's famous debate with John Dominic Crossan. Craig had the better points that were actually supported by historical evidence while Crossan did not even bother to refute any points nor make any of his own. The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact and anyone who looks into this impartially should find that out.

 

[Praxiteles]

Well, it took me a little less than a year to fully deconvert. I don't consider that rapid.

Gosh, I do. Mine took the best part of a decade! I made a stop at every station on the sliding scale of disbelief.

Well, if you're comparing that to what I did, it's not exactly the same. I had severe doubts, but still believed what I was saying was 100% true, until I was shown how wrong I was and why.

Yes, I know that yours and hers weren't the same. I think that I see a similarity between your transition from vocal fundy (are we allowed to use that word?) to non-believer.

Some things about it all though were instinctual for me, such as the inability for me to have faith. I only had belief because I thought that there was a good reason for believing in the things that I did, and that one day I would stumble upon the secret reason. And in fact there was no secret reason.

I rather think that if most people stop to really consider those things that they hold to be true, they'd finish the exercise as different people from when they started, even if only incrementally.

 

[Matthew777]

You need to work on your approach. Blasting what you perceive to be the truth onto others is not a very good way; we'll all just ignore you.

I am sorry if I have offended you but you've got to realize that true Christianity and young earth creationism are almost entirely unrelated; if not mutually exclusive.
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that, my friend, is a historical fact. If you can seperate the divinity of Christ from whatever Rev. Billy Bob Republican Preacher has taught you, then you will be much better off.

 

[mikeynov]

Actually, I have read his posts and he has a firm grasp of evolution. He continues to reject it because of a philosophy/reasoning about science that goes something like this: you need to be a Christian to be able to really understand science and reach correct conclusions. Without God you are doomed to reach incorrect conclusions and produce error.

I'll give him credit for a better grasp than your average creationist, but his understanding of the mechanisms of evolution are, imho, lacking.

I suppose his problem is mostly a misunderstanding of science itself.

 

[aeroz19]

Gosh, I do. Mine took the best part of a decade! I made a stop at every station on the sliding scale of disbelief.

Oh, my. Why in the world did it take that long? Were you forced to conduct your search slowly? Did it take a long time to find answers? Or were you meticulous about every detail? What do you mean when you say you stopped at every station? What does the station represent?

I rather think that if most people stop to really consider those things that they hold to be true, they'd finish the exercise as different people from when they started, even if only incrementally.

I agree.

 

[mikeynov]

Evolution is not important as far as being a salvation issue. As for the question of origins, I would describe myself as a "seeker". I am not willing to accept Darwinian evolution at this time because, quite frankly, that would be quite too easy. I understand that there is a bounty of evidence in support of the theory but I also see valid, non-religious reasons to express doubt also.
One question I often ask myself is that if Darwin was right on origins, why did the Bible provide a conflicting Creation account? One cannot so easily dismiss Genesis as mere allegory because then that places the rest of Scripture under suspicion also. There is no reason within the text of Genesis itself, as far as I know, to doubt that it at least attempts to provide an actual history.
For example, the Hebrew "Adam" both means man and is a pun on the ground from which he was formed. If man were not created from the dust of the ground, why would it be alluded to in his name? If we did not come from dust then what meaning is there in "You are dust and to the dust you shall return"? Until I am able to resolve these Scriptural problems and am presented with undeniable scientific evidence, I will not accept Darwinian theory.
Anyways, for the moment, let us put Genesis aside. The fact is that the Gospels provide reliable historical testimony for the life of Christ, His message, His trials, and His resurrection. This is why whenever a Christian Biblical scholar debates a skeptical scholar, the Christian almost always wins. Just think of William Lane Craig's famous debate with John Dominic Crossan. Craig had the better points that were actually supported by historical evidence while Crossan did not even bother to refute any points nor make any of his own. The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact and anyone who looks into this impartially should find that out.

Stop saying "Darwinnian evolution." We've come a long way since Darwin.

Also, suggesting that the resurrection of Christ is historical = insane, and almost no historians who aren't wildly fundie (including a good % of Christian archeologists/historians) would vehemently disagree with that appraisal.

Christ's resurrection is a matter of faith, NOT historicity.

 

[Knowledge3]

I don't remember a time when I gave up on Jesus, per say. I just gave up on God, and so Jesus went with him. But I do doubt a virgin birth. Since I have been doing research into other religions I have read many extraordinary or miraculous claims made about the heroes of myths, the starters/reformers of religions, the prophets and other really important figures, and it is obvious that they could not possibly be true and did not happen, and that these stories were created later on as exaggerated stories of what really happened, or as completely made-up tales to honor the person after they died. Such is most likely to be the case with Jesus.

But I do not recall a time when Jesus gave up on me. I have lot of experience from what you are describing. I feel that we often put too high expectations on ourselves and what we are "supposed" to believe. In a sense of theology, Jesus is normally not a foundation in our principles when God is not also a foundation. I see a pattern involving faith that is foundational principle, it can either be a house of cards or an unmoving structure that is firmly rooted. When we remove that first card, it only makes sense that the rest are bound to be fall as a result of that first card not being in it's proper place.

I was so sheltered as a fundamentalist. I knew nothing of church history or how other churches conducted their services. I didn't know about sacraments or the Real Presence. And I didn't know that my denomination had not existed for the past 2000 years.

Me? I am just a regular Christian. There is no need to be equated with a political category.

Why do you believe/accept such a notion? (circumstantial evidence category, most likely)

There is truth to the story that is often missed in light of what people claim to be "evidence." My most circumstantial evidence comes from my own sense of who God is and why. I can recall myself as a child and still have the same concept of what God is. I recall reading the illustrative Bible at 4 years with the pictures in it even at 22 years old. What I experience as a result of those foundations often carry over and serve as a point of reference when dealing with the issues of today. What I read and see from even the most accomplished Bible skeptics and Doubting Thomases often do not hold up to this truth.

 

[Matthew777]

I'll give him credit for a better grasp than your average creationist, but his understanding of the mechanisms of evolution are, imho, lacking.

What evolutionary mechanism do we know that would produce the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats? I am not talking about speculation, what may or may not have happened, but something that we can actually show to be true. What evolutionary mechanism produced the human mind? What evolutionary mechanism produced DNA?
I would like to say that I know much more about evolutionary theory than the average person which is one of the reasons why I doubt it so much. The more I learn about biology the less I am able to think, "Well, it just happened and that's it".

 

[mikeynov]

What evolutionary mechanism do we know that would produce the wings of butterflies, birds, and bats?

Natural selection working upon the raw material provided via mutation. Not too complicated.

I am not talking about speculation, what may or may not have happened, but something that we can actually show to be true.

What evidence would you even accept?

What evolutionary mechanism produced the human mind? What evolutionary mechanism produced DNA?

Well, when you say "mind," you drift into metaphysical abstraction, to some degree. But my money's on the same mechanism described above.

As to DNA - even you know better than this. Evolution doesn't describe the origin of DNA itself, it implicitly assumes the DNA<-->DNA-->RNA-->protein-->trait dogma of genetics.

I would like to say that I know much more about evolutionary theory than the average person which is one of the reasons why I doubt it so much. The more I learn about biology the less I am able to think, "Well, it just happened and that's it".

Alright, I'll grant you that you sound a lot less nuts than most YEC's.

At this point, I'm not even sure what you think. Do you doubt common descent, or the adequacy of proposed evolutionary mechanisms?

In other words, do you agree that evolution has happened? Yes/no. Based on your posts to date, I'm not honestly sure - you seem to be drifting towards Denton/Behe ID-ism, in which case you accept common descent but find natural selection "lacking" in some abstract way.

 

[Praxiteles]

Oh, my. Why in the world did it take that long?

*shrug* What was the rush? I wasn't seeking or anything, nor was I closely examining my beliefs (except on a couple of occasions). I just lived my life, and every so often I would discover that my world view had morphed sufficiently to deserve a new label.

Were you forced to conduct your search slowly? Did it take a long time to find answers? Or were you meticulous about every detail? What do you mean when you say you stopped at every station? What does the station represent?

As I said above, I didn't spend much time giving deep consideration to my beliefs. I just suppose that, as I experienced living on planet earth, many of the things that I had been taught as a child didn't necessarily ring true, or in fact weren't even necessary.

I should say that at no point was I YEC. Creationism was never an issue for my faith state, and in fact I had no idea such a thing existed until I stumbled onto the wonderful world of teh intarw3b in the mid/late nineties.

As for stopping at every station, it ran kind of like this:

Devout Christian -> moderately devout Christian -> disinterested Christian -> vague theist -> vague Taoist -> deist ->weak atheist ->something like weak atheist, with hopes that there is something out there, but thinking that there probably isn't.

But those are merely points on the journey, which is why I say i stopped at every station. The stations would be the points at which I reevaluated the labels I gave to myself.

I agree.

Of course. You're clearly and thoughtful and intelligent woman.

 

[mikeynov]

I am sorry if I have offended you but you've got to realize that true Christianity and young earth creationism are almost entirely unrelated; if not mutually exclusive.
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that, my friend, is a historical fact. If you can seperate the divinity of Christ from whatever Rev. Billy Bob Republican Preacher has taught you, then you will be much better off.

No, it's not a historical fact. It's what ultra-religious historians try to suggest, and this position represents the opinion of a fraction of the relevent experts in said fields.

It's the YEC of history. Going from "we have a reasonable consenus of people who all said the same thing in about the right time" to "a guy magically rose from the dead" is about as non-sequitur as it gets. History is a social science, and since it's subject to the same scientific method that all science is, it can't even draw metaphysical/magical conclusions like that.

The best you could ever possibly say is that people around the time of Jesus appeared to believe it was true, and wrote about it. And, by extension of this logic, you'd have to include a few hundred thousand other miraculous events from all sorts of world religions on exactly the same criteria.

 

[Matthew777]

No, it's not a historical fact. It's what ultra-religious historians try to suggest, and this position represents the opinion of a fraction of the relevent experts in said fields.

That is a false and unsupported assertion. When Biblical scholars engage in actual debates, the traditional Christians will almost always win.
For example, check out Bill Craig's debates:

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-0301800-0479300?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1/102-0301800-0479300?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

Biblical faith is faith in historical fact.

 

[aeroz19]

I am sorry if I have offended you but you've got to realize that true Christianity and young earth creationism are almost entirely unrelated; if not mutually exclusive.
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that, my friend, is a historical fact. If you can seperate the divinity of Christ from whatever Rev. Billy Bob Republican Preacher has taught you, then you will be much better off.

Amazing. You further insult me. Where's the ignore button...