Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[2PhiloVoid]

One could call it a... 'bad faith' explanation?

I'll see myself out.

Seeing yourself out can only be seen as an anti-intellectual repartee. I wouldn't use it thinking it says anything about my own level of education or actual discernment.

Besides, Sartre meant something by it and I don't think he was wholly wrong any more than Kierkegaard was with his similarly laden notions.

But not everything bad acting Christians do comes out of 'bad faith.' Sometimes, it's just ignorance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seeing yourself out can only be seen as an anti-intellectual repartee. I wouldn't use it thinking it says anything about my own level of education or actual discernment.

Besides, Sartre meant something by it and I don't think he was wholly wrong any more than Kierkegaard was with his similarly laden notions.

But not everything bad acting Christians do comes out of 'bad faith.' Sometimes, it's just ignorance.

I was making a joke.

 

[River Jordan]

I think we already know that they "try" and don't get anywhere with it other than to publish a few books on their favored topics.

Then as it stands, methodological naturalism remains the best way to do science, regardless of their complaints.

Their churches are tell them this; and this often comprises their pastors, their favored denominational apologists, and maybe their mommies and daddies, too.

Then that's who we need to focus on, rather than atheists and scientists. It's people within our own faith who are driving people away.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was making a joke.

Then maybe use an emoji occasionally to make it clearer and it'll be easier for me to move through any momentary appearance of Asperger's.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then maybe use an emoji occasionally to make it clearer and it'll be easier for me to move through any momentary appearance of Asperger's.

I'll think about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then as it stands, methodological naturalism remains the best way to do science, regardless of their complaints.

Right. I agree, and I'm not saying otherwise.

Then that's who we need to focus on, rather than atheists and scientists. It's people within our own faith who are driving people away.

From the sociological data we have, I don't think that those particular people (mostly younger) are being driven away from our common Christian faith solely due to a misrepresentation of the Nature of Science being taught in their churches.

It's typically a bunch of other social issues all bundled together that bring on the urge to "deconstruct."

 

[River Jordan]

Right. I agree, and I'm not saying otherwise.


From the sociological data we have, I don't think that those particular people (mostly younger) are being driven away from our common Christian faith solely due to a misrepresentation of the Nature of Science being taught in their churches.

It's typically a bunch of other social issues all bundled together that bring on the urge to "deconstruct."

Ok, I guess there's nothing left to discuss. We agree methodological naturalism is the best way to conduct science, and we agree that the people using science to drive people away from Christianity are primarily Christian leaders.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, I guess there's nothing left to discuss. We agree methodological naturalism is the best way to conduct science, and we agree that the people using science to drive people away from Christianity are primarily Christian leaders.

I don't know that it's "primarily" Christian leaders. There are a lot of interrogatives to answer in identifying them with precision. And, what's more, there are a number of Ex-Christians leading the deconstruction movement, too, who are also a part of the demotion of faith.

 

[SelfSim]

We agree methodological naturalism is the best way to conduct science, ..

I have issues with this. Scientific thinkers have no need for assuming philsophical approaches as being 'true'.
What you claim and seek argeeement upon there, is inconsistent with the scientific approach in that science requires no untestable assumptions, or tenets, of the philosophical '-isms'.
PS: Aka, the scientific method states no preconditions .. especially believed-in ones.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know that it's "primarily" Christian leaders. There are a lot of interrogatives to answer in identifying them with precision. And, what's more, there are a number of Ex-Christians leading the deconstruction movement, too, who are also a part of the demotion of faith.

Who (specifically) are you referring to?

 

[River Jordan]

I have issues with this. Scientific thinkers have no need for assuming philsophical approaches as being 'true'.

There's a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is the method science is conducted under, the latter is a philosophical view. The two are not the same.

What you claim and seek argeeement upon there, is inconsistent with the scientific approach in that science requires no untestable assumptions, or tenets, of the philosophical '-isms'.

See above. You may be mixing up methodological and philosophical naturalism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who (specifically) are you referring to?

.... mostly, I'm referring to all sorts of popular Ex-Christian, Atheist, and Agnostic youtubers and authors and think-tank leaders, whether they're professional or amateur.

There's a long list I could make, but I'll just throw out a name or two to suffice for now: Dan Barker or Michael Shermer or Bart Ehrman, Joshua Bowen, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's really a matter of who is being listened to most with the most public press time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then maybe use an emoji occasionally to make it clearer and it'll be easier for me to move through any momentary appearance of Asperger's.

You are a victim of Poe's Law.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are a victim of Poe's Law.

I honestly would have though the comment of "I'll see myself out", which is very often told after a knowingly bad joke, would have been a dead give away...

 

[River Jordan]

.... mostly, I'm referring to all sorts of popular Ex-Christian, Atheist, and Agnostic youtubers and authors and think-tank leaders, whether they're professional or amateur.

There's a long list I could make, but I'll just throw out a name or two to suffice for now: Dan Barker or Michael Shermer or Bart Ehrman, Joshua Bowen, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's really a matter of who is being listened to most with the most public press time.

Thanks for giving names. I'm only familiar with one of those (Shermer) and from what I've read he has no credibility due to some nasty allegations.

I've been a youth minister for a while now and I've never heard any kids mention those people, but I definitely have heard them mention AiG and other YEC organizations and how they tell them they have to choose between science and Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I honestly would have though the comment of "I'll see myself out", which is very often told after a knowingly bad joke, would have been a dead give away...

The problem is that I've been on CF since about---------oh, geez! How long has it been now?--------------about a decade and a half, and I've run into to many sarcastic Ex-Christian/Atheists who have often been all over the place with their supposed "wit," often in the form of gaslighting.

So, if I see a comment like the one you made, it's no longer easy for me to always discern someone who is cracking a joke from someone who is using gaslighting, pace-palming and other ruder and more underhanded debate tactics to undermine the whole interlocutory process.

Forgive me for misreading your intent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for giving names. I'm only familiar with one of those (Shermer) and from what I've read he has no credibility due to some nasty allegations.

I've been a youth minister for a while now and I've never heard any kids mention those people, but I definitely have heard them mention AiG and other YEC organizations and how they tell them they have to choose between science and Christianity.

May the Lord bless you in your youth ministry endeavor. But I'm sure the kids will be encountering more than they are willing to tell you.

 

[River Jordan]

May the Lord bless you in your youth ministry endeavor. But I'm sure the kids will be encountering more than they are willing to tell you.

Thanks, but I've actually become a go to person for questions about science in our church. I suppose some could be concealing things, but I don't know why they would since I don't tell anyone what to do, believe, or anything like that. The most I do is give info to people who are interested, like if someone has read an AiG article and wants to know science's take I'll give them some things to look over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, but I've actually become a go to person for questions about science in our church. I suppose some could be concealing things, but I don't know why they would since I don't tell anyone what to do, believe, or anything like that. The most I do is give info to people who are interested, like if someone has read an AiG article and wants to know science's take I'll give them some things to look over.

That's great to hear! You're in a good position to help direct those in your sphere of influence. I wish I could do as much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks, but I've actually become a go to person for questions about science in our church. I suppose some could be concealing things, but I don't know why they would since I don't tell anyone what to do, believe, or anything like that. The most I do is give info to people who are interested, like if someone has read an AiG article and wants to know science's take I'll give them some things to look over.

Re science -- and as the song goes:

You got to know when to hold'em
Know when to fold'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run