Christian Response To Vid Needed.

[Spectrox]

Fair enough Antlerman. However, I think the God issue as you are describing just becomes so subjective, it's as if individuals create God in their own image. I just don't see the point, that's all. And the G-word has got so much baggage associated with it, that it's almost asking for trouble when somebody uses it. I see your point though. It just isn't meaningful to me at this particular stage in my life.

 

What's Minneapolis like?

[Antlerman]

Fair enough Antlerman. However, I think the God issue as you are describing just becomes so subjective, it's as if individuals create God in their own image. I just don't see the point, that's all. And the G-word has got so much baggage associated with it, that it's almost asking for trouble when somebody uses it. I see your point though. It just isn't meaningful to me at this particular stage in my life.

 

What's Minneapolis like?

Well I just got back from 4 days in Midtown Manhattan, and it's hot and muggy and rainy here. I'm telling you, after a few days there to come back to this city, as much as a love it here, it really makes it seem like its like a small smattering of large buildings in the middle of a frickin farm field! Nothing like a little contrast to accentuate the differences. People are so 'rural' here, even though we are in a city of 3 million. New York is incredible. First time there for me.

 

As far as the G-word, I get how it's too close to home for a lot of folks, especially here. But it helps to realize that not everyone is totally unreasonable in their beliefs, whether or not it's something anyone might choose to adopt for themselves. I think it's helpful to have a balanced perspective in leveling criticism. I prefer putting a laser scope on the rifle, rather than carpet bombing. Surgery removes the sick spots, battering rams smash the whole body, and so forth. To me the greatest way to gut out fundamentalism is to deny them their claim of proprietorship on all things God. That's a huge snow-job on their part, and sad so many let them get away with it, really.

[Guest end3]

To me the greatest way to gut out fundamentalism is to deny them their claim of proprietorship on all things God. That's a huge snow-job on their part, and sad so many let them get away with it, really.

 

Maybe they just haven't evolved enough

[freeasabird]

I thought I gave a reasonable answer Antlerman in terms of a designer God. That a designer God is redundant because living creatures aren't designed in the normal sense of the word (i.e. a mind has planned it all out).

Yes, which is what I said is addressing a particular narrow definition of God. The point was made that, "A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process." This doesn't account for the vast majority of those who believe in God in one way or another who do not have to play gymnastics with science or faith in order to accept evolution. Evolution doesn't threaten "God" for them. So, in fact, a few hours of research doesn't say anything in regard to God for them as far as showing if science validates or invalidates their views. How someone chooses to see or not see God in the process is for all intents and purposes, a matter of faith, not science.

 

If "God" is something other than a designer then I don't think this type of God is particularly powerful or relevant to us and is probably meaningless as something that really exists. Unless we're talking Raellianism?

Well, there are a whole lot more alternative ways of looking at God in this than the Raelians! To those other non-Extraterrestrialist believers, God is very relevant and meaningful. It's just that in their minds they see God very differently than that particular narrow subset of Christianity I mentioned, the literalist, evangelical American Protestant group. How things happen in nature has little to do with upsetting the essence of what their beliefs entail. Hindus and Buddhists, and even Jews by and large have no issues at all with evolution. It's not until you start sinking down into the categories below mainline protestants where you have a real anti-evolutionary stance. See the Pew chart on this Wiki article on theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

 

So my point again is that to state that the details of how evolution works will "show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process", is to start with a definition of God defined by literalists and limit the question to a highly overly-simplistic matter of either true or false, based on that criteria alone as though it represents all beliefs about God. How God fits into anything in the world is a not scientific matter for most people.

 

I don't get why you keep harping on my quote so much. I say there is evidence, and you counter that people don't care about evidence and use faith. Well fuck, isn't that the whole point of what we're talking about? There are millions of YEC's who reject or are ignorant of all modern scientific evidence of an old earth. There are millions again who accept an old earth but reject evolution. Million again who accept evolution but say god did it. I profess that the evidence and experience people are exposed to (and when) will determine where they fall on the sliding scale of belief. The point is as you show people strong evidence, and enough of it, they will often accept it. Show a young earth creationist all the evidence for an old earth and they may just in fact accept it, even if they go no further. Do the same for evolution and someone may just accept it. Then, once you've moved them far enough down the line and they want to say "well ok I accept evolution but god did it" show them the evidence - good evidence and plenty of it - to show that there was no forward planning and that god could not have been involved if he had any kind of end goal in mind.

[Antlerman]

I thought I gave a reasonable answer Antlerman in terms of a designer God. That a designer God is redundant because living creatures aren't designed in the normal sense of the word (i.e. a mind has planned it all out).

Yes, which is what I said is addressing a particular narrow definition of God. The point was made that, "A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process." This doesn't account for the vast majority of those who believe in God in one way or another who do not have to play gymnastics with science or faith in order to accept evolution. Evolution doesn't threaten "God" for them. So, in fact, a few hours of research doesn't say anything in regard to God for them as far as showing if science validates or invalidates their views. How someone chooses to see or not see God in the process is for all intents and purposes, a matter of faith, not science.

 

If "God" is something other than a designer then I don't think this type of God is particularly powerful or relevant to us and is probably meaningless as something that really exists. Unless we're talking Raellianism?

Well, there are a whole lot more alternative ways of looking at God in this than the Raelians! To those other non-Extraterrestrialist believers, God is very relevant and meaningful. It's just that in their minds they see God very differently than that particular narrow subset of Christianity I mentioned, the literalist, evangelical American Protestant group. How things happen in nature has little to do with upsetting the essence of what their beliefs entail. Hindus and Buddhists, and even Jews by and large have no issues at all with evolution. It's not until you start sinking down into the categories below mainline protestants where you have a real anti-evolutionary stance. See the Pew chart on this Wiki article on theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

 

So my point again is that to state that the details of how evolution works will "show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process", is to start with a definition of God defined by literalists and limit the question to a highly overly-simplistic matter of either true or false, based on that criteria alone as though it represents all beliefs about God. How God fits into anything in the world is a not scientific matter for most people.

 

I don't get why you keep harping on my quote so much. I say there is evidence, and you counter that people don't care about evidence and use faith.

I didn't say it that way. I said basically its a non-issue. Not, that they ignore evidence and simply say "I have faith". That's not at all what I was saying. That's how you interpret it because you seem to see all things called faith, all beliefs in God, as the same thing. I'm quite explicit in saying how it's not. I'm saying they accept the evidence, but it is a non-issue because faith in God for them is not impacted by accepting evolution as it is in all its glorious evidence. They embrace both. How do you figure they do?

 

There are millions of YEC's who reject or are ignorant of all modern scientific evidence of an old earth. There are millions again who accept an old earth but reject evolution. Million again who accept evolution but say god did it. I profess that the evidence and experience people are exposed to (and when) will determine where they fall on the sliding scale of belief.

Only if the debate is framed within that very narrow subset of literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity. Then what you say is valid. What about those who are on entirely different scales? It's a non-issue there.

 

The point is as you show people strong evidence, and enough of it, they will often accept it. Show a young earth creationist all the evidence for an old earth and they may just in fact accept it, even if they go no further. Do the same for evolution and someone may just accept it. Then, once you've moved them far enough down the line and they want to say "well ok I accept evolution but god did it" show them the evidence - good evidence and plenty of it - to show that there was no forward planning and that god could not have been involved if he had any kind of end goal in mind.

Yes, again, this is how they understand God in their thinking. All this accomplishes is showing that thinking is flawed. It doesn't disprove God however, since the majority of people don't think like them about God, the meaning of God, or the meaning of faith. I have no problem blowing the literalist out of the water in such ignorant thinking, not just in science, but in matters of religious faith as well.

[Guest Valk0010]

Unless your talking deism or pantheism or something obscure. I fail to see how anyone could rationally hold the idea of evolution and a loving god and intelligent god in there heads.

[freeasabird]

Unless your talking deism or pantheism or something obscure. I fail to see how anyone could rationally hold the idea of evolution and a loving god and intelligent god in there heads.

 

Ah yes, this is the source of the disagreement. Obviously, I frame my points from the standpoint of an ex-christian rather that a strictly atheist perspective. Additionally, IMHO the professing Christian of non "literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity" is by and large a perspective of ignorance. There are of course exceptions but they are rare. Explained another way, I would broadly submit that the more knowledgeable someone is on the bible the less knowledgeable they are on science which comes in conflict with it, and vice versa.

[Guest Valk0010]

Unless your talking deism or pantheism or something obscure. I fail to see how anyone could rationally hold the idea of evolution and a loving god and intelligent god in there heads.

 

Ah yes, this is the source of the disagreement. Obviously, I frame my points from the standpoint of an ex-christian rather that a strictly atheist perspective. Additionally, IMHO the professing Christian of non "literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity" is by and large a perspective of ignorance. There are of course exceptions but they are rare. Explained another way, I would broadly submit that the more knowledgeable someone is on the bible the less knowledgeable they are on science which comes in conflict with it, and vice versa.

I agree hence why, I think unless your talking about any sort of god, that by design doesn't interfer with human affairs, you can't accept evolution and god at the same time.

[Antlerman]

Additionally, IMHO the professing Christian of non "literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity" is by and large a perspective of ignorance. There are of course exceptions but they are rare. Explained another way, I would broadly submit that the more knowledgeable someone is on the bible the less knowledgeable they are on science which comes in conflict with it, and vice versa.

I see your point, but again this is true to you coming from how you approached your understanding of the Bible which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that it was literally factual in all matters history, science, and faith. To someone like this, then yes what you say holds true. No disagreement. But there are plenty, arguably the majority of mainline Christians and, Jews as well, who don't hold their views of their religions scriptures that way. It's not out of ignorance as to what it says, but simply that they see them as stories about faith, not facts of history.

 

So to them who don't approach these texts or beliefs as literal there is no conflict between the two as they are not set up as diametrically opposed at the outset. The crux of the problem appears rather in not being able to fathom how they can approach faith non-literally. This is why the further down you go on that chart into Evangelical Protestant Christianity I linked to, the more opposition to evolution you see. They are the ones who are increasingly more literalist. And yes, of course in mainline Christianity you have literalists as well, it's just that as a whole it is less so that way.

[freeasabird]

Additionally, IMHO the professing Christian of non "literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity" is by and large a perspective of ignorance. There are of course exceptions but they are rare. Explained another way, I would broadly submit that the more knowledgeable someone is on the bible the less knowledgeable they are on science which comes in conflict with it, and vice versa.

I see your point, but again this is true to you coming from how you approached your understanding of the Bible which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that it was literally factual in all matters history, science, and faith. To someone like this, then yes what you say holds true. No disagreement. But there are plenty, arguably the majority of mainline Christians and, Jews as well, who don't hold their views of their religions scriptures that way. It's not out of ignorance as to what it says, but simply that they see them as stories about faith, not facts of history.

 

So to them who don't approach these texts or beliefs as literal there is no conflict between the two as they are not set up as diametrically opposed at the outset. The crux of the problem appears rather in not being able to fathom how they can approach faith non-literally. This is why the further down you go on that chart into Evangelical Protestant Christianity I linked to, the more opposition to evolution you see. They are the ones who are increasingly more literalist. And yes, of course in mainline Christianity you have literalists as well, it's just that as a whole it is less so that way.

 

I see where you might think that based in my background which you were correct about, but the data fits my opinion. In the link below, only 16% of the US population accept naturalistic evolution. Given that about 10% of that group are atheists, you can deduce that 6% or less of that group are religious.

 

Edit, link added

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

 

[Antlerman]

Additionally, IMHO the professing Christian of non "literalist, American Protestant Evangelical Christianity" is by and large a perspective of ignorance. There are of course exceptions but they are rare. Explained another way, I would broadly submit that the more knowledgeable someone is on the bible the less knowledgeable they are on science which comes in conflict with it, and vice versa.

I see your point, but again this is true to you coming from how you approached your understanding of the Bible which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that it was literally factual in all matters history, science, and faith. To someone like this, then yes what you say holds true. No disagreement. But there are plenty, arguably the majority of mainline Christians and, Jews as well, who don't hold their views of their religions scriptures that way. It's not out of ignorance as to what it says, but simply that they see them as stories about faith, not facts of history.

 

So to them who don't approach these texts or beliefs as literal there is no conflict between the two as they are not set up as diametrically opposed at the outset. The crux of the problem appears rather in not being able to fathom how they can approach faith non-literally. This is why the further down you go on that chart into Evangelical Protestant Christianity I linked to, the more opposition to evolution you see. They are the ones who are increasingly more literalist. And yes, of course in mainline Christianity you have literalists as well, it's just that as a whole it is less so that way.

 

I see where you might think that based in my background which you were correct about, but the data fits my opinion. In the link below, only 16% of the US population accept naturalistic evolution. Given that about 10% of that group are atheists, you can deduce that 6% or less of that group are religious.

 

Edit, link added

http://www.religious...g/ev_publia.htm

But this doesn't say anything. You are stating that a purely naturalistic evolution understanding that excludes the existence of God is the only way to see evolution. The actual comparison is between those who accept evolution - period, with or without God whether naturalistic or theistic, and those who reject it, namely the Creationists.

 

From the poll you link to they say exactly what I am saying:

 

"Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and

biblically literal

(among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated,

mainline Protestants and Catholics

were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists."

 

Are you saying that someone who accepts evolution, but believes God wills it to be that way, are in fact disproved by science? How can science legitimately say such a thing since the question of God falls outside science? The point I am making, once again, is that they are not violating what science shows about evolution, just choosing to see it as an act of God. They accept evolution, and it doesn't violate faith for them - only for the literalists, be they Christian or Atheist.