The alternate debating creationists thread

[bhsmte]

The Bible.

Scientists usually find answer of hard question at place seemingly unrelated to the question. That is exactly true.

Whatever works for you.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I base my words on experience is reading what creationists have to say on these boards and the tactics they use to debate.

I also speak from experience. I believe God created the universe, but I don't fit the caricature used by non-creationists to describe creationists. It's not unusual for me to spend 50 posts in a thread explaining why the labels placed on me are not true before we even get to discussing what I actually do believe.

What I also find interesting is how often people seem to take an attitude of, "He's evil and he knows it." I'm not a psychologist but I've never experienced someone who actually holds that position. Everyone I've ever known who reaches that point immediately begins to change their life to rectify the problem. Until that point, everyone I've ever known feels they can justify what they are doing. They may be perfectly aware other people don't like what they're doing. They may even realize someone (police, etc.) will force them to stop if they're caught, but they still feel justified. Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? It's a major theme of the book - the way "great men" justify themselves as being above the law.

My point is that the reasons most people give for creationists being "wrong" seem more intended to justify dismissing them rather than understanding them. If so, I would ask: Is there a reason to understand them or should they just be dismissed and everyone moves on.

 

[bhsmte]

I also speak from experience. I believe God created the universe, but I don't fit the caricature used by non-creationists to describe creationists. It's not unusual for me to spend 50 posts in a thread explaining why the labels placed on me are not true before we even get to discussing what I actually do believe.

What I also find interesting is how often people seem to take an attitude of, "He's evil and he knows it." I'm not a psychologist but I've never experienced someone who actually holds that position. Everyone I've ever known who reaches that point immediately begins to change their life to rectify the problem. Until that point, everyone I've ever known feels they can justify what they are doing. They may be perfectly aware other people don't like what they're doing. They may even realize someone (police, etc.) will force them to stop if they're caught, but they still feel justified. Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? It's a major theme of the book - the way "great men" justify themselves as being above the law.

My point is that the reasons most people give for creationists being "wrong" seem more intended to justify dismissing them rather than understanding them. If so, I would ask: Is there a reason to understand them or should they just be dismissed and everyone moves on.

As I stated, I do feel I have an understanding why some creationists behave in the way they do. When I say that I mean; the outright dismissing of objective evidence, calling others evil for going against God and the bible and stating anything that goes against the bible is evil.

IMO, they have such a strong psychological need to believe what they choose to believe, they have built tremendous defense mechanisms to protect their belief at all costs. It is far too painful to even contemplate opening up and accepting objective evidence that may go against their belief, then it is to expose themselves with confirmation bias, selective reasoning and all sorts of psychological behaviors that are tell tale of cognitive dissonance.

I have an advanced degree in a medical field and have done boatloads of reading on psychology and there has been some interesting work done on the topic of; psychology of belief and it plays out very well when reading many of the posts on this board.

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[Resha Caner]

As I stated, I do feel I have an understanding why some creationists behave in the way they do.

(emphasis mine) A whole host of questions comes to mind.

So you think you understand some. What fraction do you think this represents? Do you think anyone in this fraction understands you?

Do you see any value in trying to understand the remaining fraction?

Are there potentially harmful consequences to allowing these beliefs to continue? If so, what should be done about it?

 

[bhsmte]

(emphasis mine) A whole host of questions comes to mind.

So you think you understand some. What fraction do you think this represents? Do you think anyone in this fraction understands you?

Do you see any value in trying to understand the remaining fraction?

Are there potentially harmful consequences to allowing these beliefs to continue? If so, what should be done about it?

The hard core creationists (science is evil, the bible is 100% accurate, etc. etc.) are easy to understand from a psychological standpoint, because their behaviors are textbook and very very predictable.

When you get down to the creationists that don't threaten you with hellfire, etc., they have made a decision, to believe the creation story for their own unique reasons. Let me add this, I am a firm believer, that anyone who believes in extraordinary stories with little to no evidence, has some psychological need they are trying to fulfill and their chosen belief is the fulfillment. I am not saying this psychological need is unhealthy, or they have psychological problems, especially if their belief legitimately helps them to be a better person and to cope with life. If someone believes the literal bible story and it helps them through life, they respect others and their beliefs, don't put themselves on a pedestal and judge others, than I would tell that person to hold onto their belief, because it works for them.

Do other people understand me? I have no idea. For myself, I used to be a christian and came to a place where I realized I was only fooling myself and I did not want to live a pretend life and that works for me.

Are there harmful consequences? As long as one's belief does not harm others or themselves, I don't see any negative consequences. You have been on this site for 3 years, have you ever seen a creationist on this site say; "you know what, I get it now and I accept evolution".

It may have happened, but most people make decisions on their own time and in their own place and not when someone is telling them they need to change. There is a significant amount of cognitive dissonance behavior on this site and that means people with certain beliefs, are showing behaviors that indicates the evidence being presented does register, even if they do not admit the same.

 

[Resha Caner]

You have been on this site for 3 years, have you ever seen a creationist on this site say; "you know what, I get it now and I accept evolution".

Are you saying debating on an Internet site is probably not an effective way to change people's minds? I would agree, since (to answer your question) I don't see people changing their position here. But people do change their minds, so something must have caused it.

I am a firm believer, that anyone who believes in extraordinary stories with little to no evidence, has some psychological need they are trying to fulfill and their chosen belief is the fulfillment.

I have to say that I find these kinds of statements to be of the "wife beater" type. Even then I don't know that it really says anything. We all have needs. If you don't think your beliefs are filling some kind of need then I am perplexed as to why you would hold them.

Do other people understand me? I have no idea.

Why not? Do you think it doesn't matter? I am, of course, speaking only of the issue at hand - not your entire being.

Maybe you see the point, maybe you don't. Just as people are unlikely to change their view because of what is said here, few people enjoy a pop psychology lesson explaining how someone reading posts on the Internet understands them better than they understand themselves.

When I had cancer, I got advice from a lot of people who had an uncle who knew somebody who knew what to do.

So, I'll just lay out there what I find humorous about this whole thing. There are any number of studies indicating that the number of people who comprehend science is disappointingly low. Of course we're all above average here - of course - who would ever question that. But it means there are a lot of people saying they accept evolution who don't understand what they're accepting. I'm curious to know how that differs from all the creationists here claimed to not understand what they're accepting (or rejecting as the case may be).

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying debating on an Internet site is probably not an effective way to change people's minds? I would agree, since (to answer your question) I don't see people changing their position here. But people do change their minds, so something must have caused it.

What I am saying is it is highly unlikely, that people would acknowledge that change publicly on this site. Does what they read here impact them? Absolutely and that is proven with the cognitive dissonance behavior that is common. Some may change their mind, but it will be when it is their idea, not someone else's.

I have to say that I find these kinds of statements to be of the "wife beater" type. Even then I don't know that it really says anything. We all have needs. If you don't think your beliefs are filling some kind of need then I am perplexed as to why you would hold them.

Precisely. If a belief is fulfilling a need, people will protect it and some will go to great lengths to protect it.

Why not? Do you think it doesn't matter? I am, of course, speaking only of the issue at hand - not your entire being.

It's not something I think about much, or am concerned about. Some people are more prone to judge others and some try to understand. I am more of a person who likes to try and understand the behavior, as opposed to judging the behavior.



Maybe you see the point, maybe you don't. Just as people are unlikely to change their view because of what is said here, few people enjoy a pop psychology lesson explaining how someone reading posts on the Internet understands them better than they understand themselves.

How many people really do understand themselves well? It is probably one of the most difficult things to do, to be objective about yourself. Some can do it and some can't. I like to understand human behavior from a psychology standpoint, because that is where the core motivation comes from to behave and to believe in a certain way. I could be right or I could be wrong, but it is something that intrigues me.

When I had cancer, I got advice from a lot of people who had an uncle who knew somebody who knew what to do.

So, I'll just lay out there what I find humorous about this whole thing. There are any number of studies indicating that the number of people who comprehend science is disappointingly low. Of course we're all above average here - of course - who would ever question that. But it means there are a lot of people saying they accept evolution who don't understand what they're accepting. I'm curious to know how that differs from all the creationists here claimed to not understand what they're accepting (or rejecting as the case may be).

I agree, some people do accept evolution without having a clue what it is about. I will add though, that I believe this is less common than those who accept christianity and it's dogma, without ever doing a thorough scholarly and historical review of the book many have been taught to just accept and it is off limits to criticism. Religion is far more entrenched in our society, than the discoveries of science and is usually taught at a much younger age.

The important piece that I trust with science, is it is self correcting over time. They may get something wrong, or something half right and it is only a matter of time before someone comes along with clarification and evidence to fill the gap. Science has bias just like christianity, but those bias' are typically short term, because there is too much motivation for someone to come along and get it right. If someone is wrong in science and is proven wrong, they only have one choice, if they want to have any credibility in their profession. Science has never had to call on religion or the bible for it's discoveries, but religion has had to adapt to the discoveries of science over time, when the evidence gets so compelling, the other option goes off the table.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree, some people do accept evolution without having a clue what it is about. I will add though, that I believe this is less common than those who accept christianity and it's dogma, without ever doing a thorough scholarly and historical review of the book many have been taught to just accept and it is off limits to criticism. Religion is far more entrenched in our society, than the discoveries of science and is usually taught at a much younger age.

I find a few of your statements a mischaracterization of both Christianity and science. Just as science doesn't start off with stochastic calculus, Sunday School doesn't start off with a reading of Tractatus Logico-Theologicus. They both start off simple and build. Along the way, a world view is taught - either explicitly or implicitly.

I also find what you said a bit contradictory. Some people are skilled at sports, some at art, some at science, and so forth. It is simply impractical to think that everyone is going to study, experience, and understand everything. So, a "thorough scholarly and historical review" is a silly requirement for accepting Christianity. It is also a silly requirement for accepting science. And by that I mean to say it is silly to think everyone will pass such a requirement.

The point of my previous post was not to say trusting scientists is undesirable. Rather, it was to say that I wish people would acknowledge it is necessary.

The important piece that I trust with science, is it is self correcting over time. They may get something wrong, or something half right and it is only a matter of time before someone comes along with clarification and evidence to fill the gap. Science has bias just like christianity, but those bias' are typically short term, because there is too much motivation for someone to come along and get it right. If someone is wrong in science and is proven wrong, they only have one choice, if they want to have any credibility in their profession. Science has never had to call on religion or the bible for it's discoveries, but religion has had to adapt to the discoveries of science over time, when the evidence gets so compelling, the other option goes off the table.

This is always an interesting conversation. The whole basis of Christianity is that people fail, that they need to admit their failures and change, and that they need something outside of themselves to make that happen. Yet religions are made up of the same type of stubborn, thick-headed people who do science. People bring the same faults to both the exercise of science and religion.

So, yes, some religious people stubbornly resist admitting fault. But to claim this means Christianity promotes an idea that people never have to admit they're wrong is just silly.

For all of what you said about science correcting its errors, I would bet you have never once doubted the scientific method. That is the connection you need to make here. You can't fault me for refusing to give up my belief in God when you refuse to give up your belief in the scientific method (or at least that is my assumption). We are both standing on something we believe does not change even as we acknowledge the fact that some things do change.

 

[juvenissun]

As I stated, I do feel I have an understanding why some creationists behave in the way they do. When I say that I mean; the outright dismissing of objective evidence, calling others evil for going against God and the bible and stating anything that goes against the bible is evil.

IMO, they have such a strong psychological need to believe what they choose to believe, they have built tremendous defense mechanisms to protect their belief at all costs. It is far too painful to even contemplate opening up and accepting objective evidence that may go against their belief, then it is to expose themselves with confirmation bias, selective reasoning and all sorts of psychological behaviors that are tell tale of cognitive dissonance.

I have an advanced degree in a medical field and have done boatloads of reading on psychology and there has been some interesting work done on the topic of; psychology of belief and it plays out very well when reading many of the posts on this board.

This is totally backward. I try to convince you because I want you to believe. I quit talking to you because I give up on you. My faith is not built on the winning of debate. After all, I will go to the Heaven regardless and all unbelievers can not make it anyway.

So, correct yourself on this critical concept. Creationists do not build their faith upon the idea of Creation.

 

[bhsmte]

I find a few of your statements a mischaracterization of both Christianity and science. Just as science doesn't start off with stochastic calculus, Sunday School doesn't start off with a reading of Tractatus Logico-Theologicus. They both start off simple and build. Along the way, a world view is taught - either explicitly or implicitly.

When a youngster is exposed to a certain religion and even simple concepts (and you see this all over the world) at a young age and they are taught it is fact, they are much more likely to accept it and it will become their religion.

I also find what you said a bit contradictory. Some people are skilled at sports, some at art, some at science, and so forth. It is simply impractical to think that everyone is going to study, experience, and understand everything. So, a "thorough scholarly and historical review" is a silly requirement for accepting Christianity. It is also a silly requirement for accepting science. And by that I mean to say it is silly to think everyone will pass such a requirement.

I don't think I said a thorough study should be required or expected of everyone and it's obvious this would never happen. If someone is making claims about the bible though and basing their faith on it, why wouldn't they want to dive in and see what it is all about and if they are questioned about it, you would think they would want to have a high objective knowledge of the same. I already stated, I have no issue with someone that states they believe based on faith, if it makes them a better person and they treat others with respect. Where the thorough study comes in, is when people start making specific claims about scripture and it's meaning. I don't think it is a coincidence, that a recent Pew poll showed non-believers had the highest level of religious knowledge when tested. Muslims were second and christians were last. Non-believers tend to be a group that did once believe and this poll makes sense, because many became non believers after digging underneath the surface.

The point of my previous post was not to say trusting scientists is undesirable. Rather, it was to say that I wish people would acknowledge it is necessary.



This is always an interesting conversation. The whole basis of Christianity is that people fail, that they need to admit their failures and change, and that they need something outside of themselves to make that happen. Yet religions are made up of the same type of stubborn, thick-headed people who do science. People bring the same faults to both the exercise of science and religion.

So, yes, some religious people stubbornly resist admitting fault. But to claim this means Christianity promotes an idea that people never have to admit they're wrong is just silly.

I don't believe I said that. I said some people who have a believe that is psychologically important to them, will deny evidence against their belief and will go through all sorts of psychological gymnastics to protect the belief. This just doesn't apply to religion, it also applies to those who claim the twin towers were brought down by the government, who planted explosives in the buildings and similar goofy conspiracy beliefs. I had some banter with a christian on another thread and told them about how I got to where I am and acknowledged, I could be wrong that there is no God, but I don't believe that I am. I asked them if there was any chance they could be wrong and God did not exist and they said there was zero chance. This tells me, this person has already pre-loaded their psyche to deny evidence, to use confirmation bias and selective reasoning.

For all of what you said about science correcting its errors, I would bet you have never once doubted the scientific method. That is the connection you need to make here. You can't fault me for refusing to give up my belief in God when you refuse to give up your belief in the scientific method (or at least that is my assumption). We are both standing on something we believe does not change even as we acknowledge the fact that some things do change.

I would never fault anyone for holding onto their belief, as I have already stated. Again, I only have issues with people of faith, when they negatively judge a non-believers, claim they are doomed, they haven't reached out to God, make claims they have objective evidence of God and or call science evil. If they are respectful and acknowledge other people have different beliefs, then they are using their belief in a healthy way.

 

[bhsmte]

This is totally backward. I try to convince you because I want you to believe. I quit talking to you because I give up on you. My faith is not built on the winning of debate. After all, I will go to the Heaven regardless and all unbelievers can not make it anyway.

So, correct yourself on this critical concept. Creationists do not build their faith upon the idea of Creation.

I see no need for correction. I said what I meant to say and believe it to be accurate.

 

[Resha Caner]

My apologies if I was overly poetic with my reply. I don't mean to misrepresent you, but I see a lot in what you don't say. It seems to make an implication. Take the list of examples you give of people undergoing "psychological gymnastics." By so doing you draw an implicit analogy that the thought patterns of the religious are analogous to nutty people who generate conspiracy theories - if a religious person makes an argument, it's gymnastics, but if a non-religious person makes an argument, they're just defending the truth.

While that may express your view, it does nothing to justify it, and makes no attempt to demonstrate understanding.

When a youngster is exposed to a certain religion and even simple concepts (and you see this all over the world) at a young age and they are taught it is fact, they are much more likely to accept it and it will become their religion.

Again, this is not particular to religion. It's true of anything taught to children at a young age. As such, my reaction is, "So what." You're just as likely to bias your children toward your views as I am to bias my children toward mine. Even if you tell them nothing and send them out to find their own way, you're still expressing a view of how learning is to be acquired.

Some children accept the views of their parents. Some reject those views. It has nothing to do with whether the view being taught is religious.

If someone is making claims about the bible though and basing their faith on it, why wouldn't they want to dive in and see what it is all about ...

You're giving a special place to knowledge. There's nothing wrong with such a desire, but it holds no special place above other desires. Maybe it is more important to experience love as a way to understand God's love than to gain theological knowledge to have a proper theodicy.

In fact, per our earlier exchange on what Internet discussions can accomplish, I have always thought that what changes people's minds is that which comes from a trusted source. So, a loving relationship is much more likely to convince someone to change than a theology lecture - feeding the hungry, aiding the sick, and visiting the imprisoned.

I don't think it is a coincidence, that a recent Pew poll showed non-believers had the highest level of religious knowledge when tested. Muslims were second and christians were last. Non-believers tend to be a group that did once believe and this poll makes sense, because many became non believers after digging underneath the surface.

I don't know the poll you refer to, so it's hard to answer the details, but, God isn't going to give an entrance exam for heaven so it doesn't much matter.

I wouldn't be surprised if non-believers have a broader knowledge of world religions than Christians, but I don't see any reason why Christians need to go exploring for alternatives. They need to understand those with whom they meaningfully interact, but I don't think we agree on what constitutes that understanding. The mention of Muslims is humorous because I happen to be involved with a mission to Muslims. One of the tactics tried (that I'm not particularly fond of) is to show them exactly how much they don't know about Islam and the Koran. The return accusation (not unfounded) is that those who do this are twisting Islam - presenting false images of Islam as the "facts" of Islam. The point is that I see supposedly knowledgeable non-believers doing the same thing to Christians, and soon as we get into a discussion about the details of Confessional Lutheranism (my church) they almost without fail display an appalling lack of understanding.

I would never fault anyone for holding onto their belief, as I have already stated. Again, I only have issues with people of faith, when they negatively judge a non-believers, claim they are doomed, they haven't reached out to God, make claims they have objective evidence of God and or call science evil. If they are respectful and acknowledge other people have different beliefs, then they are using their belief in a healthy way.

This is a tough one. I'm sure you've heard the analogies of someone living a harmful lifestyle. According to 12-step programs, they don't want to acknowledge anything is wrong. That's the first step. Granted some people approach it in a horrible manner, but the intent is to share something they think is good. Why should I hide from you that which I think is good?

And the whole "as long as it's not harmful" thing doesn't fly with me. Sorry, but it comes across to me as an attempt to appease me - as a request to leave you alone and not bother you with my religion. I prefer straight-forward requests - respectful, tactful, but straight-forward. We don't have any personal relationship to speak of, so for me to push something on you would indeed be counterproductive. If you have an intellectual curiosity about my beliefs, I will share. If not, I'll leave you alone. But to be honest, I think you would see Christ better through a good relationship with a strong Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

My apologies if I was overly poetic with my reply. I don't mean to misrepresent you, but I see a lot in what you don't say. It seems to make an implication. Take the list of examples you give of people undergoing "psychological gymnastics." By so doing you draw an implicit analogy that the thought patterns of the religious are analogous to nutty people who generate conspiracy theories - if a religious person makes an argument, it's gymnastics, but if a non-religious person makes an argument, they're just defending the truth.

Let me make myself very clear and I apologize if I have not. I never claimed (and stated as such) that people who believe are nutty or have psychological issues and I was straight forward in stating as such. What I will say, is anyone who believes an amazing claim (such as God) with the available evidence are doing so because they have a psychological need to do so, as I did myself, for 90% of my life. Is there anything wrong with this, no, because EVERYONE makes an effort to fulfill their needs in different ways. It only becomes unhealthy, when the belief becomes destructive to oneself or others around them. If a christian actually followed how Jesus is portrayed, then they would be a wonderful shape, but from my observations, this seems to be a challenge for many.

While that may express your view, it does nothing to justify it, and makes no attempt to demonstrate understanding.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to see justification for my position, yet I am happy to explain it. When it comes down to it, we only need to justify our beliefs to ourselves, as we are all unique in our own way and make our own conclusions.

Again, this is not particular to religion. It's true of anything taught to children at a young age. As such, my reaction is, "So what." You're just as likely to bias your children toward your views as I am to bias my children toward mine. Even if you tell them nothing and send them out to find their own way, you're still expressing a view of how learning is to be acquired.

I agree, but I would add, God is an all powerful concept that rises above anything that would be taught a child and it carries with it, at least in the United States as being the socially acceptable thing to believe, while it is clear, it is socially not good to be considered a non-believer. I think it is important to point out, the vast majority of believers were believers when they were very young and the vast majority of non-believers, were also believers when they were young and came to different conclusions later in life.

Some children accept the views of their parents. Some reject those views. It has nothing to do with whether the view being taught is religious.



You're giving a special place to knowledge. There's nothing wrong with such a desire, but it holds no special place above other desires. Maybe it is more important to experience love as a way to understand God's love than to gain theological knowledge to have a proper theodicy.

Each of us should decide what is important to each of us and I believe we also do so based on psychological needs. For whatever reason, I grew a strong desire to be honest with myself, acquire knowledge and to not pretend, but to live a life where I felt I was not pretending. Whatever path a person chooses, certainly doesn't preclude them from having a high level of morality, be a good person and love others.

In fact, per our earlier exchange on what Internet discussions can accomplish, I have always thought that what changes people's minds is that which comes from a trusted source. So, a loving relationship is much more likely to convince someone to change than a theology lecture - feeding the hungry, aiding the sick, and visiting the imprisoned.

How does someone become a trusted source? For many, it is someone they agree with, because some like to surround themselves with people that think like them, because it is comfortable. Could be why there are so many denominations of christianity, because people seek comfort in particular beliefs that fit them and be around others that are similar. Some may change as you presented, but I also believe, some need to be challenged, but challenged in an honest respectful manner.

I don't know the poll you refer to, so it's hard to answer the details, but, God isn't going to give an entrance exam for heaven so it doesn't much matter.

If how God is described in the bible is true; all loving, all caring, loves all of creation, etc. etc., I don't believe he will give an entrance exam either, in fact, I don't believe an all loving God would only care about specific religious beliefs or much of anything, except the type of person someone was.

I wouldn't be surprised if non-believers have a broader knowledge of world religions than Christians, but I don't see any reason why Christians need to go exploring for alternatives. They need to understand those with whom they meaningfully interact, but I don't think we agree on what constitutes that understanding. The mention of Muslims is humorous because I happen to be involved with a mission to Muslims. One of the tactics tried (that I'm not particularly fond of) is to show them exactly how much they don't know about Islam and the Koran. The return accusation (not unfounded) is that those who do this are twisting Islam - presenting false images of Islam as the "facts" of Islam. The point is that I see supposedly knowledgeable non-believers doing the same thing to Christians, and soon as we get into a discussion about the details of Confessional Lutheranism (my church) they almost without fail display an appalling lack of understanding.

I was brought up as a Lutheran.


This is a tough one. I'm sure you've heard the analogies of someone living a harmful lifestyle. According to 12-step programs, they don't want to acknowledge anything is wrong. That's the first step. Granted some people approach it in a horrible manner, but the intent is to share something they think is good. Why should I hide from you that which I think is good?

Many things can be "good" if they are used in the right manner and almost anything can be bad if it is misused or used as a weapon.

And the whole "as long as it's not harmful" thing doesn't fly with me. Sorry, but it comes across to me as an attempt to appease me - as a request to leave you alone and not bother you with my religion. I prefer straight-forward requests - respectful, tactful, but straight-forward. We don't have any personal relationship to speak of, so for me to push something on you would indeed be counterproductive. If you have an intellectual curiosity about my beliefs, I will share. But to be honest, I think you would see Christ better through a good relationship with a strong Christian.

If what I said doesn't fly than that is your choice, but I will stand by what I said; I have no problem with anyone choosing whatever path they may choose (christianity, other religions, atheism, etc.), if it makes them a better person and it is not harmful to them or others around them. We are all unique and are entitled to our own conclusions in leading a quality life. I have known and still do, many a strong christians, including pastors and have had a lengthy journey to where I am and feel I am in the right place for me.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

My view is what Richard Robbins shows in Global Problems and The Culture of Capitalism: Protestant fundamentalism is a response to the expansion of capitalism (see [thread=7780899]this thread[/thread]).

Creationism, I would argue, is a part of that aforementioned Protestant fundamentalism that is in response to the expansion of capitalism. Robbins even asserts that the Scopes Trial was not really about evolution but the news media and others made it that way and the cultural and economic forces that were the real issue did not get any attention.

 

[juvenissun]

I see no need for correction. I said what I meant to say and believe it to be accurate.

You must be a creationist.

 

[Resha Caner]

Let me make myself very clear and I apologize if I have not. I never claimed (and stated as such) that people who believe are nutty or have psychological issues and I was straight forward in stating as such.

You say you enjoy psychology. Surely, then, you must have studied the ways people process language. It's not just about clinical, analytic definitions of words but so much more. This thread was meant to ask general questions about how evolutionists understand (interpret) creationists, but let's focus in on how you and I understand each other. I'm trying to explain to you how you are coming across. Even though I disagree with your position, I'm not so much attacking your position as explaining what I hear and why it's not convincing.

So, with respect to this first statement, my answer is: Yeah, I hear you say this, but ...

Why do I say that? Because of what comes next.

What I will say, is anyone who believes an amazing claim (such as God) with the available evidence are doing so because they have a psychological need to do so, as I did myself, for 90% of my life. Is there anything wrong with this, no, because EVERYONE makes an effort to fulfill their needs in different ways. It only becomes unhealthy, when the belief becomes destructive to oneself or others around them. If a christian actually followed how Jesus is portrayed, then they would be a wonderful shape, but from my observations, this seems to be a challenge for many.

In earlier posts you were only giving me that first sentence. The second part didn't come until I challenged you. I believe you set Christianity (or at least religion) apart as something different. How do you explain this difference? So far, all you've given me is that the religious are trying to fill some psychological need. Now, it's not like I haunt all the threads you post in, so I could have a slanted view of how you present yourself, but I don't see you going around and telling scientists in the science thread that the reason they do science is to fill a psychological need. As such, this takes on emphasis. You're implicitly indicating something unique about the psychological need of Christians that others don't have. At the same time you don't seem interested in hearing why people believe God created the universe. You've already made your conclusion.

I am completely unconvinced that this psychological need is unique to Christians. Until you change that perception, it shades how I interpret all of your follow-on comments. So are you trying to draw a distinction or aren't you? If so, you'll need to explain yourself better. Until then, all I can point out is 2 things:
1) Terms like "unhealthy" are much too vague. You're leaving it to your/my opinions of what is unhealthy, which are bound to be different.
2) I think you're using a cherry-picked caricature of Jesus whereby "love" means leaving people to do whatever they want. What about the Jesus who challenged Pharisees and tax collectors, who turned over tables in the temple. Are you agreeing it's OK for Christians to model that confrontational aspect of Jesus? I don't think so.

How does someone become a trusted source? For many, it is someone they agree with, because some like to surround themselves with people that think like them, because it is comfortable.

I'm sure some people do this, but again atheists are just as likely to do this as the religious. However, I don't think this is what people are looking for when they look for something trustworthy. What they look for is something that delivers on its promises.

If how God is described in the bible is true; all loving, all caring, loves all of creation, etc. etc., I don't believe he will give an entrance exam either, in fact, I don't believe an all loving God would only care about specific religious beliefs or much of anything, except the type of person someone was.

This is a common answer, but wrong. The trite reply is: God accepts you the way you are, but he loves you too much to leave you that way. We don't think this of other relationships, so I don't know why we think it of God. Who thinks its acceptable for a husband to say, "I don't understand why my wife expects me to be faithful. Why can't she just accept me as I am?" Or who thinks its acceptable for an employee to say, "I don't understand why my boss expects me to get this work done. Why can't he accept me as I am?" Or, the oddest one of all would be, "I don't understand why the law of gravity kills me when I walk off a cliff. Why can't it accept me the way I am?" The fact is, there are rules. And for every rule there is someone who doesn't want that rule.

We can't reject God and then be puzzled when he rejects us.

I was brought up as a Lutheran.

Then I expect you have a leg up. However, attending a Lutheran church and maturing as a Lutheran are two different things. Additionally, there are Lutheran churches and then there are confessional Lutheran churches. Many churches in America would do better to drop the pretense and join the Universalists.

 

[bhsmte]

You say you enjoy psychology. Surely, then, you must have studied the ways people process language. It's not just about clinical, analytic definitions of words but so much more. This thread was meant to ask general questions about how evolutionists understand (interpret) creationists, but let's focus in on how you and I understand each other. I'm trying to explain to you how you are coming across. Even though I disagree with your position, I'm not so much attacking your position as explaining what I hear and why it's not convincing.

So, with respect to this first statement, my answer is: Yeah, I hear you say this, but ...

Why do I say that? Because of what comes next.



In earlier posts you were only giving me that first sentence. The second part didn't come until I challenged you. I believe you set Christianity (or at least religion) apart as something different. How do you explain this difference? So far, all you've given me is that the religious are trying to fill some psychological need. Now, it's not like I haunt all the threads you post in, so I could have a slanted view of how you present yourself, but I don't see you going around and telling scientists in the science thread that the reason they do science is to fill a psychological need. As such, this takes on emphasis. You're implicitly indicating something unique about the psychological need of Christians that others don't have. At the same time you don't seem interested in hearing why people believe God created the universe. You've already made your conclusion.

Resha, if you have viewed any of my many posts on other threads there are a few things I have been extremely consistent about:

-Every human being on earth has psychological needs that are unique to them and they will attempt to satisfy those needs.
-I respect a person's of faith's position, as long as they don't get into being judgmental of those who disagree with them, paint them and how they come to their conclusions as evil, don't make claims that their personal faith can be objective to others and if they don't see it, they aren't trying
-If anyone chooses to believe in remarkable claims with little to no evidence, they are likely doing so to fill a psychological need, whether it be religion, ghosts, UFO's, big foot or whatever and these beliefs are ONLY unhealthy, when they are destructive to oneself or people around them.


I am completely unconvinced that this psychological need is unique to Christians. Until you change that perception, it shades how I interpret all of your follow-on comments. So are you trying to draw a distinction or aren't you? If so, you'll need to explain yourself better. Until then, all I can point out is 2 things:

I have made this clear in many of my posts, that fulfilling psychological needs is not unique to christians, it applies to all people, to varying degrees.I don't know what else I can do to make that more clear. I myself, came to where I am today, because of a psychological need to be honest with myself and not pretend, because it became apparent to me, that I was fooling myself and that was something I could not do any longer and was my trigger point.

1) Terms like "unhealthy" are much too vague. You're leaving it to your/my opinions of what is unhealthy, which are bound to be different.

As I have stated many times before, if fulfilling a psychological need (lets say having faith) makes you a better person, allows you to cope with life better, allows you to get along and respect others to a higher degree, allows you to be productive, then that is a HEALTHY choice. If fulfilling a psychological need causes one to to reek havoc to those around them, disrespect another person, or decreases one's capability to cope with life, then that would be unhealthy. And yes, you may have different opinions in regards to what is healthy and unhealthy as we may disagree on a whole host of other definitions.

2) I think you're using a cherry-picked caricature of Jesus whereby "love" means leaving people to do whatever they want. What about the Jesus who challenged Pharisees and tax collectors, who turned over tables in the temple. Are you agreeing it's OK for Christians to model that confrontational aspect of Jesus? I don't think so.

We could go on forever about what Jesus may have said and what he didn't say and there is significant historical and scholarly debate about the same. Looking at the NT, the core message from Jesus would seem to be; love your neighbor, love your enemy, forgiveness, empathy, do not judge others etc.. And yes, there are other messages, some of which are contradictory in nature, which adds to the issue of very few can agree on interpretations and which areas to give more emphasis and or some folks just pick out the parts they like and disregard the others that may contradict the message they want to hang their hat on.

I'm sure some people do this, but again atheists are just as likely to do this as the religious. However, I don't think this is what people are looking for when they look for something trustworthy. What they look for is something that delivers on its promises.

Sure, both believers and non-believers would tend to seek people they agree with and there will be more trust in those situations, because they feel less threatened. IMO, most people don't acquire new knowledge or accept new knowledge as well, when they surround themselves with like minds. As the saying goes; if everyone is thinking the same, there isn't a lot of thinking going on. I'm not sure what promises one can make to another regarding an important topic like this, except for them to be honest with the other person regarding their position and explaining why they have the position they do. We all have a tendency to first deny information that may go against our position, but when given time to contemplate in our own place and our own time, the new information may be accepted or it may not, but it will happen on that persons own time, not what someone else desires for them.



This is a common answer, but wrong. The trite reply is: God accepts you the way you are, but he loves you too much to leave you that way. We don't think this of other relationships, so I don't know why we think it of God. Who thinks its acceptable for a husband to say, "I don't understand why my wife expects me to be faithful. Why can't she just accept me as I am?" Or who thinks its acceptable for an employee to say, "I don't understand why my boss expects me to get this work done. Why can't he accept me as I am?" Or, the oddest one of all would be, "I don't understand why the law of gravity kills me when I walk off a cliff. Why can't it accept me the way I am?" The fact is, there are rules. And for every rule there is someone who doesn't want that rule.

I don't think you interpreted my answer here correctly. I never said it is ok for one to have bad behavior and thats just the way it is. I said, if there is a God and the description of him is accurate, then I don't believe God will care what religion one believes in, or what their beliefs are at all, but he will care what type of person they were and the type of life they lived. Why would God put so many people in such a perilous position when it comes to believing Jesus was God? The christian belief states if you don't accept Jesus as God, you are doomed. Yet, God set it up where Jesus was only exposed to a very small portion of the population and all the rest formed their own beliefs, separate from christianity. Would a loving God set things up this way if he was going to judge the world on the christian dogma? I don't think so and is one of the many parts of the christian story that I can not reconcile. This is why I believe, if there is a God, there is a far better chance it is the God that Einstein left the door open to, a universal God, who is not personal, does not answer prayers and does not involve himself with altering life on this planet and that type of God is far easier to reconcile, with the reality of the world we live in.

We can't reject God and then be puzzled when he rejects us.

If the christian God exists, then you would be correct. If the christian God doesn't exist, then it is a whole different ballgame.



Then I expect you have a leg up. However, attending a Lutheran church and maturing as a Lutheran are two different things. Additionally, there are Lutheran churches and then there are confessional Lutheran churches. Many churches in America would do better to drop the pretense and join the Universalists.

That is a matter of taste, but I can't say I disagree with what you say.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just because you say you've been clear doesn't mean you have been. Put the onus on me if that helps - that I'm being thick-headed and not getting your point. Explain it to me. I'm giving you the opportunity to lay out your case, and you seem reluctant to do so. If that is true, I guess we can wind this down. If what you've said is all you have ... hmm.

My impression is that you're making a lot of assumptions. So, this all makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'm trying to point out what those assumptions seem to be. For example:

I don't think you interpreted my answer here correctly. I never said it is ok for one to have bad behavior and thats just the way it is. I said, if there is a God and the description of him is accurate, then I don't believe God will care what religion one believes in, or what their beliefs are at all, but he will care what type of person they were and the type of life they lived.

Why does it matter what you want God to be? If He exists, He is what He is. Suppose there is a horrible god: petty, vindictive, violent. Saying, "Since you're bad I'm not going to believe in you," isn't going to make that god go away. You're going to have to deal with God the way He is.

Looking at the NT, the core message from Jesus would seem to be; love your neighbor, love your enemy, forgiveness, empathy, do not judge others etc.. And yes, there are other messages, some of which are contradictory in nature, which adds to the issue of very few can agree on interpretations and which areas to give more emphasis and or some folks just pick out the parts they like and disregard the others that may contradict the message they want to hang their hat on.

And there is the above. I disagree with what you think the core message is. You're right that we could argue endlessly over what that message is and in the end accomplish nothing. But don't you think you need to understand my world view before you can ascertain what psychological needs I am supposedly filling? A blanket diagnosis is bad psychology.

As I have stated many times before, if fulfilling a psychological need (lets say having faith) makes you a better person, allows you to cope with life better, allows you to get along and respect others to a higher degree, allows you to be productive, then that is a HEALTHY choice.

Which leads to this. You're giving me some idea of what you mean, but you're basically advocating that it's OK for people to believe in falsehoods as long as there is no outward sign that you perceive as negative. I think that is an approach doomed to failure. I once worked with a heavy smoker. When he didn't smoke he was mean and irrational. If he got his smoke break, he was a pleasant, intelligent, insightful person. I only worked with him a few years. So, from that short-sighted perspective, allowing him to smoke was a good thing. I think you're applying a similarly short-sighted criteria.

-Every human being on earth has psychological needs that are unique to them and they will attempt to satisfy those needs.
-I respect a person's of faith's position, as long as they don't get into being judgmental of those who disagree with them, paint them and how they come to their conclusions as evil, don't make claims that their personal faith can be objective to others and if they don't see it, they aren't trying
-If anyone chooses to believe in remarkable claims with little to no evidence, they are likely doing so to fill a psychological need, whether it be religion, ghosts, UFO's, big foot or whatever and these beliefs are ONLY unhealthy, when they are destructive to oneself or people around them.

Based on all the above, this last set of statements simply holds no water. You say you respect everyone's faith and then give me a list of ways you consider acceptable for the expression of that faith. I'm not supposed to talk about hell because it makes you uncomfortable. You say you respect my faith and then tell me I have "little to no evidence" for believing what I believe, therefore I'm perpetuating a falsehood to fill a psychological need.

I don't see how you expect me to take any of that in a positive way, and so how can you expect me to agree that you are respecting my faith? It just comes across as dissembling, though as I've said before I suspect it's really because you're trying to be polite and aren't saying what you really think.

In that regard, I'll mention that your comments about being honest with yourself is a good thing. Pretending to be a Christian when you're not is like leaving an infection to fester. It's better to get it out in the open. So, let's get it all out in the open.

 

[bhsmte]

Just because you say you've been clear doesn't mean you have been. Put the onus on me if that helps - that I'm being thick-headed and not getting your point. Explain it to me. I'm giving you the opportunity to lay out your case, and you seem reluctant to do so. If that is true, I guess we can wind this down. If what you've said is all you have ... hmm.

Resha, I believe you are making this far too difficult and quite frankly choosing your own interpretation of what I am saying. I guess it is possible I may not be clear, but I do think I am clearer than what you give me credit for.

My impression is that you're making a lot of assumptions. So, this all makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'm trying to point out what those assumptions seem to be. For example:

Resha, I wouldn't expect it to make sense to you and because it doesn't, does not automatically mean I am not being clear in what i am stating my position to be. Your position doesn't make logical sense to me, but I respect your desire to hold your position and understand how people can come to different conclusions.

Why does it matter what you want God to be? If He exists, He is what He is. Suppose there is a horrible god: petty, vindictive, violent. Saying, "Since you're bad I'm not going to believe in you," isn't going to make that god go away. You're going to have to deal with God the way He is.

I never said a thing about what I wanted God to be. I talked about how the bible describes God and how I can't reconcile how this God would judge people based on the christian belief and explained why I can't reconcile the same. I will say again, looking at the world we live in, I believe if God exists, there is a far greater chance he is not the personal God of christianity and instead, is a God who does not interact or influence life on this planet.


And there is the above. I disagree with what you think the core message is. You're right that we could argue endlessly over what that message is and in the end accomplish nothing. But don't you think you need to understand my world view before you can ascertain what psychological needs I am supposedly filling? A blanket diagnosis is bad psychology.

I have no idea what "specific" psychological needs you would be fulfilling by your position, because that is complex and unique to us all. But, we all have these needs and we all try to fulfill them. I have been quite specific in regards to explaining myself in this regard in previous posts. In regards to the core message of the NT, yes, one could debate this until the cows come home. I have done quite a bit of research into the works of NT historians and scholars and they are all over the map in regards to; how reliable the NT is, what Jesus said and what he didn't say, what the core message is and you could go on and on. In the end, many times, people interpret the message according to what they want it to be and this is understandable, considering the contradictions, discrepancies, additions etc. that historians and scholars all agree are present.

Which leads to this. You're giving me some idea of what you mean, but you're basically advocating that it's OK for people to believe in falsehoods as long as there is no outward sign that you perceive as negative. I think that is an approach doomed to failure. I once worked with a heavy smoker. When he didn't smoke he was mean and irrational. If he got his smoke break, he was a pleasant, intelligent, insightful person. I only worked with him a few years. So, from that short-sighted perspective, allowing him to smoke was a good thing. I think you're applying a similarly short-sighted criteria.

In regards to the same, I played baseball through college and picked up the nasty habit of chewing tobacco and did so for many years. Now, I have an advanced degree in a healthcare related field, so I knew better than anyone how stupid this was, but I kept rationalizing and fooling myself that is was ok, because I had a psychological need to keep doing it. People told me for years to stop and I knew that they were 100% right, but didn't give it much effort. One day, some trigger happened and the light went off and I stopped cold turkey that instant and haven't used the stuff in years. People accept things on their own time and when it is their idea, not when someone is forcing something down their throat.

How exactly do you propose stopping people from believing in falsehoods? My position may be a falsehood and your position may be the falsehood, so what is the solution?



Based on all the above, this last set of statements simply holds no water. You say you respect everyone's faith and then give me a list of ways you consider acceptable for the expression of that faith. I'm not supposed to talk about hell because it makes you uncomfortable. You say you respect my faith and then tell me I have "little to no evidence" for believing what I believe, therefore I'm perpetuating a falsehood to fill a psychological need.

You seem to not understand that people can hold different positions and neither one may be right. We are all wired a little differently and also have had different life experiences. Some people can believe extraordinary claims with little to no evidence and some people either can't or have gotten to a position where they can't any longer (me). I have witnessed people of faith who are respectful caring people and I have witnessed people of faith who use their faith as a weapon, thinking they are better than someone else. I don't know as many non-believers (because frankly, many are in the closet because of the social stigma attached to the same) but some are good people and some are not. I stated the reasons I respect another person's faith and gave you the reasons or situations when I have a problem with how they portray the faith, when it comes to judging those who disagree with them.

I don't see how you expect me to take any of that in a positive way, and so how can you expect me to agree that you are respecting my faith? It just comes across as dissembling, though as I've said before I suspect it's really because you're trying to be polite and aren't saying what you really think.

I am doing what I can to be honest, straightforward and explain myself. Beyond that, I can't impact or control how you interpret what I say or how you react to it, but can only continue to be honest in my responses.

In that regard, I'll mention that your comments about being honest with yourself is a good thing. Pretending to be a Christian when you're not is like leaving an infection to fester. It's better to get it out in the open. So, let's get it all out in the open.

Yes, I have found it is very purposeful to be honest with myself and not pretend and have also found the same to be very enlightening and clarifying.