Why the Christian creation myth

[AV1611VET]

Lol Pat Sajak?

I didn't think it was him.

But he sure looks like him!

 

[Ana the Ist]

QV please:

SOURCE

QV? I don't know what that means...

You're correct about the idea of the four natural elements starting in ancient Greece...but they didn't start with Aristotle. As your very own link says...

"This theory was suggested around 450 BC, and it was later supported and added to by Aristotle."

So clearly, it wasn't his idea to begin with....

Moreover, how does that translate to "stunting the growth of science for 2000 years"? We're talking about people so ancient they couldn't possibly have understood the periodic table, atoms, and how they were formed. Aristotle is considered to be one of the fathers of the scientific method...his ideas about how to examine the world and draw conclusions about it literally drove scholarship forward. It's not as if science and technological development/innovation was doing great and Aristotle came along and messed it all up lol.

We can't say the same for Jesus. Christianity came along and all but drew scientific progress to a grinding halt. Scholarship stopped being about learning how the world worked through observation and experimentation...and turned into "all you ever need to know is in the bible and nothing else really matters". Education became practically synonymous with the bible for centuries...a time period we commonly refer to as the dark ages. During that time, the muslim world became familiar with the works of Aristotle and they not only thrived...but scholarship progressed much faster than it did in the christian world....which is why we use the Arabic word algebra to describe an entire branch of mathematics.

Sure, I could point to the myriad number of times the church literally intervened in scholarship to promote the christian agenda and suppress the truth...but I've always found a much better example in Thomas Aquinas. He was a man that was undoubtedly a genius...a genius of the type which there are few in history. His name could reasonably be spoken alongside the with Einstein, Newton, or Galileo. What ends did he put his massive intellect to? Garbage mostly. This man spent a tremendous amount of effort creating a hierarchy and study of "angels"...amongst other pointless religious pursuits. While it's fun reading...like most fiction it adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Compared to other geniuses who had a similarly dazzling intellect...we use practically nothing of what he wrote in modern scholarship. His biggest contributions to modern scholarship are probably in the philosophical realm...and even in that branch of study, he's considered a lightweight because of the religious slant of his beliefs. A genius wasted.

Aristotle on the other hand, is considered the father of western philosophy...and is arguably the reason why europeans eventually cultivated an attitude that favored innovation over tradition (in spite of the best efforts of christianity). It's that reason which is the biggest factor in why by the 1400s...europeans we're out exploring the world and finding out they were far more advanced than nearly every other civilization. Those civilizations didn't have an Aristotle...but they did have religions....and one need only look as far as the Aztecs to see what a society looks like when religious and supernatural explanations are the foundation of scholarship.

The vast majority of the world had a traditionalist mentality. They looked at the way something was done and said "this is the best way to do it because it's the way our fathers did it, and their fathers, and their fathers, etc.". Europeans, on the other hand, looked at innovation as preferable to tradition....if something could be improved upon in any way, then it should be improved upon, and the old way should be abandoned.

That's the biggest reason why western culture (really western european culture) has shaped and is the foundation of practically all modern cultures.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I didn't think it was him.

But he sure looks like him!

I'm not seeing it lol. Are you looking at the tiny thumbnail next to my name? Or the full sized picture when you click on my name and view my profile?

 

[juvenissun]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

Because it is a part of a much much superior theology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

many believed in the past in a flat earth too

At some point in history, that wouldn't have been an irrational belief.
The only evidence they had would have been "looking at the horizon", which looks flat.

The same goes for geocentrism.
If your only data is seeing the sun "come up" at one side, move across the sky and then "go down" at the other side, only to start over the next morning... then concluding that the sun goes around the earth, is a pretty rational conclusion.

Then they started noticing the stars etc as well. And they started realising that it didn't make any sense with a stationary earth as the center.

It just goes to show, you can be incorrect without being irrational... if you don't have the data that demonstrate your idea to being incorrect AND if your idea is in line what the data you DO have.

But to hold on to ideas when the available data shows it wrong... THAT is irrational. Always.

many believe in bigfoot or nessie. so what?

yes, many people believe a lot of nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't you mean the "theory of creationism"?

Creationism is not a "theory". It's a religious belief.

They are not the same thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because it is a part of a much much superior theology.

Superior, how exactly?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because it is a part of a much much superior theology.

Superior how?

 

[xianghua]

As for "most scientists" believing in a "designer" of the human race...you're making that up.

realy? so whats this?:

Scientists and Belief

about 51% of all scientists believe in higher power and only about 41% dont believe in god.

 

[Speedwell]

realy? so whats this?:

Scientists and Belief

about 51% of all scientists believe in higher power and only about 41% dont believe in god.

Believing in a "higher power" or even in the Christian God is not the same thing as believing in ID. You can't claim all those scientists as supporters of that kind of crap.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

No.

Everything is faith-based and axiomatic for now; there is not one person on this planet that has no faith in something. You most certainly don't have to follow a god to have faith.

 

[Ana the Ist]

realy? so whats this?:

Scientists and Belief

about 51% of all scientists believe in higher power and only about 41% dont believe in god.

As another poster already pointed out, belief in a "higher power" doesn't equate to belief that said higher power designed...or even created...mankind.

 

[xianghua]

You may not use the excuse of "english is not my first" to explain this level of dishonesty.

its simple. it was base on several surveys i have seen. so the tipical number should be somthing like 2-5%.

 

[xianghua]

Believing in a "higher power" or even in the Christian God is not the same thing as believing in ID. You can't claim all those scientists as supporters of that kind of crap.

do you know what id means? intelligent design of course. god isnt a kind of intelligent design?

 

[xianghua]

As another poster already pointed out, belief in a "higher power" doesn't equate to belief that said higher power designed...or even created...mankind.

so they believe in higher power but they dont believe that this higher power created nature? realy?

 

[Phred]

so they believe in higher power but they dont believe that this higher power created nature? realy?

Really. It's called "Deism" and it's the idea that a god started everything then left it to its own processes. Some believe it's guided, some don't. But none believe that there is a personal god who cares if you pray to it.

 

[xianghua]

Really. It's called "Deism" and it's the idea that a god started everything then left it to its own processes. Some believe it's guided, some don't. But none believe that there is a personal god who cares if you pray to it.

do you have any reference for this claim that most scientists believe it?

 

[Phred]

do you have any reference for this claim that most scientists believe it?

I didn't say most scientists believe it. I simply pointed out that such a belief exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

so they believe in higher power but they dont believe that this higher power created nature? realy?

I can't say what a huge group of people believe categorically...but I can say that the statistic you cited doesn't validate your claim that they believe mankind was designed.

 

[xianghua]

I can't say what a huge group of people believe categorically...but I can say that the statistic you cited doesn't validate your claim that they believe mankind was designed.

if they believe in a designer then i sure that they believe he designed nature too.