E. J. Dionne gets it December 23, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in E. J. Dionne, Huckabee, Republican.trackback
Writing for RealClearPolitics.com, liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne says Huckabee “has exposed a fault line in the Republican coalition,”and proceeds to precisely diagnose what ails the Republican establishment:
The old religious right is dying because it subordinated the actual views of its followers to short-term political calculations. The white evangelical electorate is tired of taking orders from politicians who care more about protecting the wealthy than ending abortion, more about deregulation than family values.
. . . . .
If you had to bet, you’d wager that the Republican establishment will eventually crush Huckabee. But the rebellion he is leading is a warning to Republicans. The faithful are restive, tired of being used, and no longer willing to do the bidding of a crowd that subordinates Main Street’s values to Wall Street’s interests.
Dionne’s prognostications sound similar to a previous post of my own.
Paul,
Once again, I’ve got to disagree with you here. At least some segments of the religious right have agreed whole-heartedly with the corporation-led agenda of the Republican Party. If you listen to Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, or the other religious propaganda sites, you hear them speaking about tax cuts and welfare cuts with the same reverence they discuss anti-abortion issues.
I don’t know your broadcasts, so I don’t know your particular history, but let’s not pretend that the religious right has been anyone’s friend if they weren’t at least three of the following four things: rich, white, Republican, and conservative. Now that the Republicans have stumbled, you’re all trying to say its because they weren’t religious enough, and that’s just not the case.
Huckabee is doing well because he’s playing the religion card better than the others, not because he has anything new to offer.
Skeptimal,
You have to understand what many of these people and groups are asking for when they talk about tax cuts… Not every single tax cut is some sort of conspiracy by the rich to get richer and make the poor poorer. There is basically a war of the worldviews going on in our society right now. Conservatives hold to a Christian theistic worldview that believes if a culture is influenced largley by the Bible and and religion (Christianity), we will need less government. This is because in theory people will behave themselves, and take care of eachother more rather than relying on the government. This also goes hand in hand with Adam Smith’s theory of the “invisible hand”, or providence guiding the economy. This is contrasted by the “enlightenment”, Marxist view that there is no God so we therefore need to turn to government to be our saviour. This is the point of view of the left, and it’s presuppositions are inherently humanistic and atheistic. I am all for helping the poor, but I will not join in with the Democrats unless they can figure out a way to do that other than communism…
We conservatives have had our fill of compassionate conservatives. The Huckster is to the left of President Bush. No way, Jose. Pun intended.
Colin,
The influence of Libertarianism on Evangelicals is certainly profound these days, but I wonder if the majority of your brethren would agree that Christianity itself requires a belief in small government. Are you saying that god quits working through Christians if the government offers aid? Because it seems to me that your world view should work the other way: if Christians were so moved of the holy spirit to give of their own wealth to take care of the poor and sick, then government aid would not be needed and would go unclaimed.
Perhaps you instead believe, as most Evangelicals seem to do subconsciously, that poverty and sickness result from sin by the poor and sick, so the government AND the church should turn their backs. Why else should it matter to a church what the government gives to a poor person?
I also don’t understand the current Evangelical attitude toward fiscal responsibility. Since when is it sin to raise taxes in a time of war and record deficits? My suspicion is that many Libertarians think that eventually the government will be bankrupt, so your small government desires will be fulfilled that way.
Regarding the Marxist-atheist-humanist section of your post, I wonder if you have really examined these issues apart from the teachings of your church. A belief that “we the people” should be able to act through our government to feed the poor is not inherently atheistic. It is also not worship of the government. Plenty of Bible-believing, science-hating Christians have had no problem with the concept since welfare and social security began 70 years go. Only when God started requiring Christians to vote Republican did Evangelicals become libertarians.
Skeptimal,
I want to say that I really enjoy reading your thought provoking posts, please continue to post here. You bring out many issues that “we” christians just don’t give the time of day. Many of my brethren simply turn off the thinking cap with republicans, We have a “Godly” president therefore, our God is on his side, God Bless America. We ignore tax cuts for the wealthy 1%, we ignore a war being fought by the poor in our country for a cause that was unfounded, we ignore the utter hypocrasy of “Gods” party as they do nothing to fight our “causes” of abortion and those evil Gays. We also ignore the concept that most of our leader in the christian community that have made their bed with the republican party are power hungry, money grabbing loonies that don’t much care for the “cause” they are fighting as much as the attention that cause gets for their empire. As a christian I almost wish my head was still in the sand regarding these issues but it is not. The worst part is, the more that things get worse in this country the stronger the movement will be, after all as Falwell and Robertson said after 9/11 we are due this judgement because of all the gays and lesbians that we have in this country. Not the fact that we are close to a theocratic form of government that is opposed to the constitution and any other form of freedom that the country was founded on.
Great post Colin!
I’ve lived over 20 years in a communist country and believe me it wasn’t fun. But what’s sad is that communism is becoming rather popular in US. Is US ready to pay the price for a Marxism world view?
The problem with any socialist/communist system is that it denies among others one major fact: people are not inherently good. People at their core are selfish and greedy.
I have no problem with welfare; however, the point is to help the poor and helpless not the lazy. And today’s welfare is a failure. There are so many single moms that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive because the money that should help them is being distributed by an incompetent government. There is no doubt that 1 dollar in a government institution responsible to help the poor does not go as far as 1 dollar in a church-based program to help the poor. The difference is the heart. That’s why government should encourage such organizations.
Skeptimal, why do you care? After all, it’s all about the survival of the fitness. Why help the poor? In your world view that really should not be a concern for you. Like Nietzsche concluded from his atheistic foundation that helping the poor is a weakness, not a strength.
See, as a Christian, I believe everyone has moral intrinsic value, because we were created in the image of God. That’s why I have every reason to help my fellow human. But, Nietzsche was right, if there is no God, no intrinsic value, then it’s all about the will of the strong one.
Let me leave you with another great quote by Nietzsche: “It is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments.”
Pixelmaster, what do you propose we do?
GK Chesterton said once: “The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”
Ben
Two great quotes! Here is a third that separates the two mindsets;
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Pix,
I appreciate your comments, and I share your frustration with Christianity. I do want to be clear that I don’t consider Christians any worse than the rest of the human race; I’m just tired of good people being relegated to second-class citizenship by a group that is no more exemplary than the average hindu, pagan, Muslim or atheist. I admire that you are willing to critically examine your own beliefs and the actions of the group to which you belong. If we all did more of that, the world might be a more peaceful place.
Benjamin,
Hello, again. As I think I mentioned when we last exchanged posts, you have a tendency to project onto the rest of us your image of what you would be if you were not religious.
You said: <>
You are obviously not familiar with my world view. Survival of the fittest is a scientific explanation for natural selection. It is not a moral philosophy embraced by atheists, humanists, or any other freethought group that I’m familiar with. (It is, however, an important aspect of the current Republican/Evangelical approach to economics.)
I care because I’m human. We can argue about whether humans care because god made them that way or because it’s a successful survival tactic, but few would dispute that it is part of human nature to care about other people. Most of us actually enjoy caring, although some are better than others at avoiding that urge. The majority of people in history have not believed in the trinity or Jehovah, and yet somehow all societies have managed to raise children and honor the dead, and most of them have had ethics that required caring for the sick.
You said: <>
…Except for those who don’t believe as you do, because non-Christians are incapable of caring, behaving honorably, or avoiding the desire to enforce communism on innocent Christians. These poor lost souls have “moral intrinsic value,” but they have no morals or values, right? Yes, I can feel the compassion dripping off of your posts.
Gents: apparently I’ve discovered that if you enclose something in these symbols: , the program this page operates on will delete the quote. My bad. Given below is my post from above, including the deleted quotes.
Pix,
I appreciate your comments, and I share your frustration with Christianity. I do want to be clear that I don’t consider Christians any worse than the rest of the human race; I’m just tired of good people being relegated to second-class citizenship by a group that is no more exemplary than the average hindu, pagan, Muslim or atheist. I admire that you are willing to critically examine your own beliefs and the actions of the group to which you belong. If we all did more of that, the world might be a more peaceful place.
Benjamin,
Hello, again. As I think I mentioned when we last exchanged posts, you have a tendency to project onto the rest of us your image of what you would be if you were not religious.
You said: **Skeptimal, why do you care? After all, it’s all about the survival of the fitness. Why help the poor? In your world view that really should not be a concern for you.**
You are obviously not familiar with my world view. Survival of the fittest is a scientific explanation for natural selection. It is not a moral philosophy embraced by atheists, humanists, or any other freethought group that I’m familiar with. (It is, however, an important aspect of the current Republican/Evangelical approach to economics.)
I care because I’m human. We can argue about whether humans care because god made them that way or because it’s a successful survival tactic, but few would dispute that it is part of human nature to care about other people. Most of us actually enjoy caring, although some are better than others at avoiding that urge. The majority of people in history have not believed in the trinity or Jehovah, and yet somehow all societies have managed to raise children and honor the dead, and most of them have had ethics that required caring for the sick.
You said: **See, as a Christian, I believe everyone has moral ntrinsic value…**
…Except for those who don’t believe as you do, because non-Christians are incapable of caring, behaving honorably, or avoiding the desire to enforce communism on innocent Christians. These poor lost souls have “moral intrinsic value,” but they have no morals or values, right? Yes, I can feel the compassion dripping off of your posts.
Skeptimal,
FIrst of all I would like you to show me evidence of a large movement of Christians that are “science haters”. Where does this exist? I am afraid it doesn’t, but rather people like to enthrone their atheistic, humanistic, and epicurean presuppositions as “science”. Also if we are filled with the Holy Spirit we should be motivated to help the poor by donating OUR OWN time, money, and resources which is a much harder thing to do that lobbying the government to do something. Also please provide evidence that the majority of Churches believe that poor people are that way due to their own sins, and we should therefore turn our back. Finally, I have researched these issues beyond what my “church” tells me. I have in fact gone to two baptist Churches since I became a Christian three years ago, and am now attending a presbyterian Chruch so I don’t think I have recieved a vacuum worldview from them. Besides history and philosophy are subjects I research on my own
Ben,
Propose that we christians stop associating with a political party, I propose we christians stop blessing candidates and their aweful actions simply because they claim the christian faith. I propose we christians stop being arrogant about our faith and the bible and approach God, life, politics, the environment, the poor with a more humble nature instead of thinking we hold ALL TRUTH. I propose we stop being Bible quoters to the worlds problems and start being involved in reconciling the worlds problems.
Colin,
Comon man,
The church has been opposed to science for centuries, people we persecuted by the church for thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. Anytime science has evidence that might conflict with our understanding of the Bible it is attacked by the church. Let’s be clear here, the church in all it forms, catholic and protestant is VERY powerful. For some reason we seem to think that the “world” is out to get us. Not the case. I like your posts Colin they are well thought out but I can’t agree with you that Christians are not “Science haters” they certainly are when it conflicts with the literal interpetation of scripture(a whole other topic in and of itself).
Colin,
I guess I would consider it science hatred that motivates wave after wave of religious zealots attacking school boards, textbooks, and science teachers for teaching evolution. I have personally heard more Bible-thumpers than I can count talk about science as if it were a demonic religion instead of a method of reasoning. The contempt for scientists is evident in any discussion with religionists who have decided that the world is only 6,000 years old. Not all Christians are science haters, but plenty of those who do hate science saw few problems with welfare until the Republican Party merged with Evangelical Christianity.
I stand by my assertion that most Evangelicals subconsciously believe that if people are poor and sick, it’s their own fault. That’s what the health and wealth gospel is all about: if you’re sick and don’t have money, it’s your own fault for not having enough faith. Even churches that don’t accept the H&W gospel as such have a nasty tendency to assume they know when it’s god’s judgment that someone undergoes hardship. And look at the comments that come forward on this very discussion board. Why are so many of you so angry that our government might be helping poor people if you don’t think they deserve to be poor? Why do so many of you follow this Republican “survival of the fittest” economics?
If it is true that you’ve researched these issues without prejudice, then tell me: why is welfare an inherently atheistic undertaking? And if it is inherently atheistic, why was it passed in the 1930’s, a time when only Christians could get elected to office?
Let me also point out the irony of a Bible-believing Christian accusing a non-Christian of “enthroning presuppositions.” If you believe in biblical inerrancy, you believe the Bible is true because the Bible and your leaders say it is true: a presupposition if there ever was one. Meanwhile you appear to be judging others for acknowledging evolution, which unlike the Bible, has been left open to challenges if another theory is found to fit more of the facts.
Socialism, Communism (how it has been applied in various countries), and Marxism are 3 different ideologies. Just wanted to make that clear because people seem to use them interchangeably.
As a conservative christian, I tend to believe it’s the Church’s responsibility to help the poor- not the state. The more power we give the state, the more it can take away.
Christ did not reach the poor and needy by changing policy and lobbying lawmakers. He did it on his own.
Skeptimal,
Let me start by saying that I don’t hate science, and I read more than what “the church teaches me”. I also don’t believe that people are poor because of their sins; the reverse might be true, however
So, you just care because you are human … why not hate because you are human? Looking through the history of mankind I can conclude that hating is more popular than caring.
I don’t doubt here that you care. I don’t doubt that many nonreligious people care and have moral values. What I seriously doubt is that they have a base for their caring and moral values! For a skeptical person especially, to accept such a statement without a foundation is very ironic.
Again, this is not a contest, who’s better or worse. This is a serious issue: Why should I care? Why should our society care? Why should the government care? Why not care more for the animals or plants than humans? What is so special about us?
Until a society has foundation to this basic problem, it can’t advance any further. US had this in their declaration of independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. That might look to you as an insignificant statement, but is the foundation of everything.
Pixelmaster,
I agree with you that we should hold whomever we vote for accountable for their actions. I also agree that our decisions on whom we are to choose should be based on more than 2 or 3 central issues.
If you know anyone who knows ALL TRUTH show him/her to me and I’ll show you a fool.
God has chosen to reveal himself to us!
I leave you with some Carl Henry quotes:
“The Hindu, the Christian and the logical positivist have similar sense experiences (not identical, to be sure, because every individual’s perceptions differ); the essential difference between them occurs not in what they see, hear, smell or taste, but in what they think about reality. The positivist thinks that sense data alone can relate us to the real world; the Hindu thinks that sense data are illusory and lead away from the real world; the Christian thinks that the phenomenal world is a real creation that witnesses to its Creator”
“The mind of man is not veiled divinity. Transcendent divine revelation, not human reasoning, is the source of truth; publicly shared reason is a divinely gifted instrument for recognizing truth ”
-”Not only the apostate abandonment of revelation as the basic Christian axiom in epistemology, but weak and fallacious views of divine revelation as well, needlessly obscure the truth of evangelical theism. The truth of revelation is dimmed also by an unbelief in the authority and reliability of Scripture, since this dilutes God’s Word and speech”
“-Either divine revelation is a source of intelligible knowledge or it is not, and if it is - as inspired biblical writers insist - then its content cannot be codeduced from secondary sources, and we are limited to what God has revealed of the intricacies of his plan”
God did not reveal Himself exhaustively, but He did reveal Himself. And to claim that we are not sure of anything is to ignore Him.
Pixelmaster,
I wouldn’t consider the catholic church’s actions against galileo as persecution. The guy was put under house arrest in a nice apartment… There really wasn’t the suppresion of “science” to the extent that secular humanists like to claim during the enlightenment. What was happening was that other Christians (Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler) were questioning the ARISTOTELEAN worldview that the catholic church held onto and insisted that science and the Bible be interpreted according too. There is a long list of Bible-believing Christians who contributed to the foundations of science in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Pasteur, Kelvin ext…)
Skeptimal,
You said… ” guess I would consider it science hatred that motivates wave after wave of religious zealots attacking school boards, textbooks, and science teachers for teaching evolution.”
I would definitly disagree with anyone attacking any of these groups of people, and I question how many credible cases there are of this occuring (do you consider challenging them in a public forum an “attack”?). What about the picketers, slanderers, and death threats that the creation science museum in Kentucky has recieved since they opened? Here is their website that is loaded with their articles and information http://www.answersingenesis.org/ . After reading this can you honestly say these people are not scientific and that they aren’t putting for credible arguments, evidence, and questions? If that is the case, and if science is about free inquiry, then why don’t I see liberals who claim to love science for objectivity’s sake (the village voice, rolling stone ext) condemning such actions?
Again I stand by my guns that the majority of American Evangelicals do not believe that people are poor due to their own sins.
“Why do so many of you follow this Republican “survival of the fittest” economics?”
It is not that simple, many of the social darwinists of the 19th and 21st centuries believed this about capitalism. I would suggest you look examine the protestant work ethic, and what Adam Smith’s intentions were to understand why we believe our view on the economy would most benefit everyone.
“why is welfare an inherently atheistic undertaking? And if it is inherently atheistic, why was it passed in the 1930’s, a time when only Christians could get elected to office?”
You can still be a Christian democrat or have socialist leaning in my opinion. However, I would argue that such a person would be logically inconsistent and should reconsider their views. If you look at the writings of the vast majority of those who first articulated such positions (Marx and others), they were all atheists and anti-God and believed that since God was gone man should take his place through a powerful government.
“If you believe in biblical inerrancy, you believe the Bible is true because the Bible and your leaders say it is true: a presupposition if there ever was one”
I do not know where you get the impression that I believe the Bible because some “leader” told me so… Yes it is a presupposition, the difference is we admit it and most Christians are open to discuss such things with non-Christians. However, if you open up a High School Biology textbook it will says things like “similar structures in various organisms is PROOF that they evolved from a common anscestor. However, such facts could also point to a common Creator, all depending on what presuppositions you come to the argument with. However, kids are not exposed to such concepts and think that the enlightenment and secular presuppositions they are taught in school are undeniable facts.
“Meanwhile you appear to be judging others for acknowledging evolution, which unlike the Bible, has been left open to challenges if another theory is found to fit more of the facts.”
No it hasn’t. I suggest you check out Ben Stein’s new movie No Intellegence Allowed to see that it clearly hasn’t been.
Katie,
You said that “I tend to believe it’s the church’s repsonsibility to help the poor- not the state”
If you believe that, more power to you. Increase your giving AND let the government help people out. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Benjamin,
“Until a society has foundation to this basic problem (finding a reason to care for each other), it can’t advance any further.”
I don’t know how many different ways I can say this. You’re projecting your needs onto the rest of us. The fact that you don’t think you could care for people without a belief in the trinity doesn’t mean anyone else shares that particular mental glitch.
Colin,
You said: “I would definitly disagree with anyone attacking any of these groups of people, and I question how many credible cases there are of this occuring (do you consider challenging them in a public forum an “attack”?).”
My point was not the definition of “attack” but the motivation for the actions, which is hatred of science. Yes, I consider the attempt to remove teachers, change textbooks, and throw out school board members for supporting science to be an act of hatred of science. These people can’t argue scientifically, so they try to override science itself. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that it’s happened very publicly in Kansas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Georgia, and less publicly in numerous other places.
“What about the picketers, slanderers, and death threats that the creation science museum in Kentucky has recieved since they opened?”
I’m sincerely sorry if these things have happened, although the death threats seem especially unlikely to me. People should not face threats merely for words they’ve spoken, however misguided those words might be.
“http://www.answersingenesis.org/ . After reading this can you honestly say these people are not scientific and that they aren’t putting for credible arguments, evidence, and questions?”
I can tell that someone has put some thought into the website, and I can see why you might find it comforting, but no, it is not scientific. In the six evidences for the genesis flood article, for instance, each “evidence” is vague and involves its own faith-based assumptions. The fact that marine fossils have been found above modern sea level in some places is not evidence that the ocean covered the earth, but AIG states that as if it were self-evident. Rapid burial of plants and animals makes sense in light of the asteroid collision that scientists now believe probably caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It takes a leap of faith to see this as evidence of a worldwide flood.
Furthermore, the entire article is based on a faith-based and untestable assumption that geological processes once worked millions of times faster than they do today.
*If* the propagators of the creation science museum have received death threats, their safety should be rigorously protected, and it should be an outrage to any American. That protection should be based on human rights, however, and not because they have done valid scientific work, because they have not.
“I do not know where you get the impression that I believe the Bible because some “leader” told me so…”
The presupposition was the important part of my comment, and I appreciate your acknowledging it. I actually haven’t found that most Christians are willing to do so. I wasn’t suggesting that you are incapable of thought independent of your spiritual leaders, only that you probably did not reach the conclusion that the Bible is true independently of a decision to convert to Christianity.
“if you open up a High School Biology textbook it will says things like “similar structures in various organisms is PROOF that they evolved from a common anscestor. However, such facts could also point to a common Creator, all depending on what presuppositions you come to the argument with.”
That’s an interesting thought, but you’re not comparing apples and oranges here. The common genetics and physical structures are not the only evidence of evolution, and there is little if any contrary evidence. A common creator might explain the common biology but it would not disprove evolution, and there is ample contrary evidence to a seven-day creation taking place 6,000 years ago.
A good amount of discussion surrounding the poor.
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
“Yes, I consider the attempt to remove teachers, change textbooks, and throw out school board members for supporting science to be an act of hatred of science.”
“”Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)
So is mister bounoure some unintelligent bigot who cannot reason scientifically? The problem is that you associate evolution with science as a whole. That is like saying wanting beer removed from football games is anti-sports. There has been much research done by even non-creationists suppporting that the events at Dover and other situations were treated unfairly and with bias (ie. the ACLU dumps a lot of money on the case). I hope you are not factoring the movie “Inherit the Wind” into how creationists treat evolutionists, as that movie is known not to present the historical facts of what happened there. The screenwriters actually took that case and mirrored it with McCarthyism to make a political point in the time frame when it was released. Also I do not think removing known false information from textbooks like; Haekel’s embryo sketches, the appendix is vestigial (it isn’t, read discover magazine from this month), and the peppered moths (a proven hoax documented by secular journalists) is wrong.
“In the six evidences for the genesis flood article, for instance, each “evidence” is vague and involves its own faith-based assumptions. The fact that marine fossils have been found above modern sea level in some places is not evidence that the ocean covered the earth, but AIG states that as if it were self-evident.”
You obviously didn’t dig deep enough into the website. There are plenty of articles that have documentation to back up their claims. AIG is run by over 500 scientists who have years of experience in their field, and are mostly all former evolutionists. I would recommend reading through the index here to see answers to practically every evolutionary claim. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Also here is a list of all the scientist that work with them…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
“It takes a leap of faith to see this as evidence of a worldwide flood.”
Likewise I believe it takes a giant leap of faith to believe nothing blew up, and created everything which then broke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and created an organized universe. I also believe that it takes a giant leap of faith to believe that life came from non-life which has never been proven by any form of science but has rather been shown to be basically impossible. I also think it takes a giant leap of faith to believe that small variations within the same animal (micro-evolution) means that we all came from an amoeba. That would require mutations that bring about brand new genetic information from scratch which has also never been demonstrated (mixing of already existings genes to create a new combo doesn’t count).
“only that you probably did not reach the conclusion that the Bible is true independently of a decision to convert to Christianity.”
I came to the conclusion that the Bible was true before I was converted. Of course I was interested and that’s why I began to investigate, but I wasn’t a committed Christian. There have been plenty of archealogists and historians who have set out to disprove the Bible, but after doing research came to the conclusion it was true and converted…
“The common genetics and physical structures are not the only evidence of evolution, and there is little if any contrary evidence. A common creator might explain the common biology but it would not disprove evolution, and there is ample contrary evidence to a seven-day creation taking place 6,000 years ago.”
. Basically evolution appears so water-tight because every child that goes through the education system is saturated with it’s line of thought and reasoning from elementary school. No alternatives, problems, or questions are presented, rather it is treated like a sacred cow that then informs the values which children are taught.
Based upon my research on the subject, I garauntee that there are answers to every single “proof” for evolution, and a creationist answer to how each piece of evidence actually fits better into their model. If you don’t want to research this on your own at AIG, I would be glad to try my best
ColinSamul
Congratulations! You get the point of Christianity.~~ “a leap of faith” Exactly, exactly, exactly!
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Colin,
You said: “So is mister bounoure some unintelligent bigot who cannot reason scientifically?”
Having never heard of Bounoure, I did some online searching. I admit the internet is not the best source of information for some things, but here is what I found. There are two kinds of references to Mr. Bounoure: creationist websites prominently displaying this quote from him, and skeptical websites referencing the fact that he was never even a member of the Biological Society in question. Nowhere is there a reference to any other accomplishments by this man who allegedly made this comment back in 1963. I don’t find this quote to be a strong argument for an avalanche of scientists saying there is more credibility in creationism than evolution.
“The problem is that you associate evolution with science as a whole. That is like saying wanting beer removed from football games is anti-sports.”
I respectfully disagree with your analogy. Evolution was put forward as a theory, subjected to scientific review, and is to this day left open to replacement by any theory that better fits the evidence. Even were it later disproven, it has undergone and withstood harsh questioning and criticism as part of the scientific process. I don’t equate evolution with science, but it is a valid scientific theory.
Creationism is not.
You said: “Basically evolution appears so water-tight because every child that goes through the education system is saturated with it’s line of thought and reasoning from elementary school. No alternatives, problems, or questions are presented, rather it is treated like a sacred cow that then informs the values which children are taught.”
There are problems with several aspects of your statements here. Kids are not taught evolutionary theory until middle or high school, if ever, so there is no indoctrination taking place. Also, while I’m not saying there are no sacred cows in science, if there were another scientific theory which explained the available evidence and which had withstood rigorous testing, it would eventually be taught next to evolution. There is no such theory at present.
The approach creationists take is that until every specious idea they put forward is disproven to their satisfaction, then evolution is false and creationism is true. Your friend at AIG require us to believe, with zero evidence, that geological and physical processes worked millions of times faster than they do today. When we are unwilling to do so, skeptics are accused of being closed-minded. Is it being closed minded to refuse to take seriously a claim that the world is flat? I don’t think so.
You referred to evolution informing the values children are taught. I haven’t seen that. I, for one, don’t see evolution as informing any values, any more than the fact that the earth is round informs any values. Facts are facts, and they have little to do with values other than that those of us who love the truth would rather have facts than fantasy. It is disturbing to me that so many people seem to adhere to religions, not because they are persuaded by evidence, but because it is too scary to imagine life without gods. If there truly is no god, isn’t that truth worth having?
“I don’t find this quote to be a strong argument for an avalanche of scientists saying there is more credibility in creationism than evolution.”
I have to do more research, but it appears as if you are right… that quote may be mistaken… However, just so you know I did not take that quote from AIG or any other credible creationist organization… It is a quote I have heard for a long time, and always assumed it was credible. However, there are many more quotes that are credible and I have in fact read entire books by former evolutionary scientists. Here is a list of scientists and doctors who have officially signed documents stating that they do not believe in Darwinian evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
http://www.pssiinternational.com/
Keep in mind most of these professionals have stated that many more of their colleagues agree with them, but are afraid to come forward in fear of ridicule or loosing their positions…
“Evolution was put forward as a theory, subjected to scientific review, and is to this day left open to replacement by any theory that better fits the evidence.”
Unfortunately, I will have to respectfully disagree with you here from a historical and sociological perspective. Darwinism came about during an age or strong rationalism and naturalism. Marx, Freud, Neitzche and many others were making a strong push to embed their views in the public consciousness. Darwinism is just another piece of the puzzle that fit into this new humanistic/atheistic worldview. Most of the original evidence that was used to propogate this theory has, in fact been disproven… However, at the time they were very effective to entrench the theory into our education system and worldview. For example, Haekel’s drew up his embryo sketches just to assist Darwin and were the result of barely any scientific research or scrutiny, but they are still sometimes put forward as evidence in text books today. The same goes with Nebraska man which was discounted later as being built up from a single pigs tooth. The same also goes with Piltdown man which was exposed in the 1950s as a flat out hoax… These were the pillar evidences of evolution which were used to justify evolution as a theory that was credible and therefore become adapted as the new theory of origins by science.
“Kids are not taught evolutionary theory until middle or high school, if ever, so there is no indoctrination taking place.”
Yes they are, they are taught “millions” or years from kindergarten when they are introduced to dinosaurs. They are also subject to this thinking by the culture and in countless childrens movies.
“Your friend at AIG require us to believe, with zero evidence, that geological and physical processes worked millions of times faster than they do today. When we are unwilling to do so, skeptics are accused of being closed-minded.”
No evidence? How about the fact that the geologic column as it appears in the average textbook (every layer present with fossils neat and in order), does not even exist. Even upper-level geology textbooks will admit that (most students are too thoroughly indoctrinated at that point to see beyond it). In fact, it would be impossible for sediment to build up in the exact same layers equally all over the earth, and any geologist will tell you that. What we do find is normally about 2-3 “columns” that actually have fossils in them in any one place. Normally similar animals are buried together, but there can be other explanations for this other than that they are from the same “age” (ie they were herding together, hydrogeological sorting). Besides that there have been plenty of anamolies where animals and plants appear in layers that “shouldn’t” be there, but an explanation is quickly made up. After all ‘we already KNOW evolution is true based off all this other evidence (which is either just as flimsy or a hoax), so therefore something must have happened to “shift” fossils’. There is plenty of positive evidence to show that the layers of sediment were place there rapidly by water. There have been countless polystrate fossils that run through several layers that have been found such as whales and trees, that could only happen due to rapid burial. The countless places on earth where there are multiple layers “bent” are also evidence of rapid burial by water. Obviously those layers weren’t rock when they were bent (rocks break not bend), so they were either all layed down in rapidly in that formation or they were soft (wet) when stress was placed on them. Carbon 14 and other radiometric datings methods are not reliable either, as both are fundementally built off of false assumptions. C-14 datings is built off the assumption that the amount of C-14 that is in the atmosphere now is the amount there always has been, therefore we can compare how much C-14 is left in an artifact to the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere now and calculate how old it is. However, there are many factors that have drastically changed the C-14 levels (decreased magnetic field, industrial revolution) that would throw the dating way off if we make this assumption. The same types of assumptions are made with all forms of radiocarbon dating. You may ask, then why do the dates they get from these methods consistantly correspond with the geological column…
“”It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable’ by investigators.”—*J. Ogden III, “The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon,” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.”
There are also plenty of other evidences that positively point towards the earth being young, and sediments being rapidly deposited. Again I would recommend you actually read through the articles on AIG (especially their sections on answering critics), because it is obvious you haven’t heard the creationists perspective. By the way most serious creationists believe the earth is 6-15,000 years old. There are also plenty of other creationists who do hold to an old earth
” I haven’t seen that. I, for one, don’t see evolution as informing any values, any more than the fact that the earth is round informs any values.”
I find children being taught they are simply animals that evolved on accident a huge factor in developing their values. Kids are taught evolution from junior high up. At that time they also are being subjected to all sorts of smutty, sensual, and pornographic idealogies and images in music and on TV. They then go to school and are taught they are animals wired for promiscuity and then go to sex education where they are given condomns and pointed towards the abortion clinic in case anything goes wrong. Evolution is a philosophy and is metaphsical at heart (As Huxley and Dewey admitted), which puts it above a simple fact such as the earth being round. Coming out of the drug/hippie culture I can attest to multiple times where evolutionary naturalism was used by kids to justify just about everything.
By the way what exactly is your worldview/beliefs?
You said: “I don’t know how many different ways I can say this. You’re projecting your needs onto the rest of us. The fact that you don’t think you could care for people without a belief in the trinity doesn’t mean anyone else shares that particular mental glitch.”
I’ll ask you even more bluntly and please try to answer the question.
Why is caring better than hating? Without an objective moral standard, you can’t say that. So, what’s your objective moral standard?
Colin,
You’re making some pretty sweeping statements that seem like they would be hard to back up. Evolutionary theory was concocted as part of an effort to indoctrinate mainstream culture with atheism? The evidence backing evolutionary has all been discredited, but in well over a century, the scientific community has been so uniformly lazy that only right-wing Bible- and Koran-believers have noticed?
Do you really consider it indoctrinating children merely to tell them the world is billions of years old? Really? Is it okay to teach them the world is round?
As for AnswersInGenesis, I *have* spent some more time there, and it’s worse than I thought. There is no intellectual honesty in a website that says you have to start all your logic with the Bible and throw out any “interpretations” of facts that disagree with the Bible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Ken Ham, the founder of the site and the creationism theme park, does not even seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Science is concerned with the physical world, and a scientific theory is one that will explain the available facts, make predictions about future discoveries, and be “falsifiable.” When a theory is falsifiable, it can be disproven, or “proven false” by evidence from the natural world.
This is not to say that theories requiring supernatural intervention (like Creationism) could not be true, but such theories can not, by definition, be considered scientific. Supernatural intervention does not require that physical evidence be left behind, and it can not, therefore, be proven or disproven by physical evidence.
Certain aspects of creationism *are* falsifiable, or disprovable, but when contrary evidence is presented, creationists fall back on supernatural explanations. For instance, the assertion that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old is disprovable in dozens of ways. Ken Ham’s response to the evidence is to say that God reset all the clocks, so you have to ignore physical evidence like carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, or obsidian hydration, all of which prove the world is older than 10,000 years. There were people on earth using tools 40,000 years ago, long before Jehovah created the world (twice) in Genesis.
You said: ”Evolution is a philosophy and is metaphsical at heart (As Huxley and Dewey admitted), which puts it above a simple fact such as the earth being round. Coming out of the drug/hippie culture I can attest to multiple times where evolutionary naturalism was used by kids to justify just about everything.”
You seem to have a great deal of misinformation regarding evolution. It is not a philosophy. It doesn’t fit the definition of philosophy, and it offers nothing but a mechanical explanation that fits the available evidence. The fact that a group of horny teenagers in the sixties used it as an approach to guilt-free sex does not mean anything. Those same teenagers might just as easily have used the Baptist approach: “I’ll have sex now and pray for forgiveness on Sunday.”
If acceptance of evolution required atheism, there would not be so many theists who accept it. We would not have Hindus, Muslims, and at least one pope who acknowledge the theory as valid.
I encourage you to research what a scientific theory is, and go somewhere other than a religious propaganda site like Answers In Genesis or a book published by an Evangelical author. I’m not asking you to accept evolution, because I don’t think that is likely given your world view, but I think you might actually acknowledge that creationism is faith-based, and therefore can not also be science.
As for my world view: I’m a free thinker/skeptic. Whatever values we may hold, I believe our understanding of how the world works should be informed by evidence, not by emotionalism or dogma.
Ben,
I have a question for you, without saying ” they are not true christians” how do we justify all the evils done in the name of God throughout history?
Can I say as an objective christian here that when it comes to evolution/creationism, Science approaches issues as if they do NOT have the answers and that they are in search of the answers. Christians/creationism has the answer in scripture and seeks to defend its worldview, at all cost, even if it calls for lying in the name of God. One thing that I have had my eyes opened to since I have become involded politically is that lying is God’s name/purpose is completely justified in order to defend the faith……I am not saying that I fully believe in evolution however, I don’t think that were have only been here 6,000 years, that idea is simply one that is illinformed….
Pixelmaster, I think that is a fair question that needs to be answered.
Firstly, however, whoever asks that question has to define what good and evil are. I assume we both have the same answer to that question.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other abuses of religion are something that can’t all be answered just by saying that “they were not true Christians”. I don’t think we can make any excuses for what some of our brothers and sisters have done.
Now, the question is: Were those evils the logical outcome of Christianity? And I can say it clearly NO. It wasn’t Jesus’ teaching that made them do what they did. It was rather their sinful nature. And from personal experience, I can tell you that not everything I do is “Christian”. I still sin!
On the other hand, most of the evil done in the name of nihilism, naturalism, evolution is very consistent.
Here is what Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Holocaust had to say about that:
“If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last state of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis like to say, ‘of blood and soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Now, people like Skeptimal will quickly deny this as “projecting our image” on his views. But really, there are not that many choices: we are either a cosmic accident or designed with a purpose by a Creator. There are no other alternatives. And believing one or the other have completely different logical outcomes.
Pix,
You said: “Science approaches issues as if they do NOT have the answers and that they are in search of the answers. Christians/creationism has the answer in scripture and seeks to defend its worldview, at all cost, even if it calls for lying in the name of God.”
Not surprisingly, I agree with you on this. We all have our presuppositions, but those with a faith-based approach judge themselves by their ability to cling to those presuppositions no matter what contrary evidence may arise. Many believe that doubt itself is a sin. These poor people must live in terror that their subconscious will point out to them the inconsistencies in their beliefs, betraying their faith with reasoning and calling into question their salvation.
Why not simply have faith that the truth is worth having, even if it means there are no gods?
Pixelmaster,
I propose three questions for your contemplation, rather than your response.
1. Has God ever lied to you?
2. Has the Word of God ever deceived you?
3. Where should our eyes stay fixed to find unadulterated truth?
The all of us,
What man does is because he IS man. What Skeptimal believes is “natural” to man.
Only God, is good, and man alone, is only evil. But, when a man is in Christ, he is a new creature. The old passes away and all things become (a process) new. Now, where in this process do we find ourselves?
Must go now, my Older Brother is beckoning. “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”.~~~ And can it be?
And there may I, though vile as he, wash all my sins away!
Indeed tis true!
Science is an empirical approach to knowledge.
But from here to conclude that only the empirical knowledge is true knowledge is a huge leap. 1+1=2 is not an empirical statement, but it is a more certain fact than gravity.
If you read a little through the history of science, you’ll see how influenced we were by Aristotle. If we were to follow Plato then “science” would’ve been different than what it is today.
Christianity has a falsifiable property. It can be proven to be false by science. Why? Because it makes tons of historical claims. If we would find Jesus’ body then of course our faith will be false.
Now, is Jesus’ resurrection an historical fact? Yes, it is. But some people will deny it on “scientific grounds”. They will argue that since we can’t understand how that is possible, we can conclude that it is not possible. It’s an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Skeptimal said: “Why not simply have faith that the truth is worth having, even if it means there are no gods?”
To conclude that “there are no gods” based on science is the same as to conclude that an apple has no taste based on our seeing.
The main question is how do we acquire knowledge. Science is the knowledge acquired through scientific method. But this kind of knowledge can never answer any “why” questions it only is suppose to answer all the “how” questions.
Why do we exist? is not a scientific question. Why there is something to begin with? is not a scientific question.
Skeptimal (by the way what is your name? it’s weird to address to someone using their nickname) are you saying that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge? And if you are saying that, can you prove me that using the scientific knowledge?
Science uses inductive reasoning. Therefore, at best science gives us high probable truths, but never facts or unshaken truths. That, of course, does not make it useless. It does, however, leave the door open for the possibility that it is wrong.
Now, knowledge about God is different than empirical knowledge. It has an empirical aspect, as I previously stated:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Jesus is God incarnated!
God chose to reveal Himself to us. And we are suppose to ask Him tons of questions, and if we’re honest in our search he’ll answer them all. That’s why faith comes through the hearing of God’s Word. Faith in the biblical sense is not a “leap into unknown”, is not “blind faith”, it is rather trusting God based on how He is and what He has done.
God loves honest seekers, but detests hypocrites.
Pixelmaster, to lie in God’s name is an offense to God.
Is Creationism science? Why not? It looks at the same data and concludes that there is a Creator.
If you go on a road, and see some rocks that are in such a position that they spell “Welcome to Canada”, you can conclude one of 2 things: the rocks ended up in this position by pure chance, the wind, the water moved them and it just happened to spell something that we recognize. You can also conclude that someone put them in that position. Both conclusions are based on the same data.
Were there some abuses on the Creationism side? Sure they were. But do you even want me to start with all the fabrications of so called scientist that wanted to prove evolution?
Bad science is bad science regardless of who practices it.
Everyone,
I would also like to point out to everyone concerning the whole “crimes of Christianity” you just cannot use the crusades as evidence… Sorry… The Crusades were a perfectly justifiable self-defense against Islamic invaders and attacks. Did some people INVOLVED in the crusades act un-Christian or push the religious aspect of the war a little to far? Sure, you cannot control everyone… But if the crusades is all the Dawkins and Harris people have then they need to reconsider history.
Skeptimal,
You seem to not have answered anything that I said, or have come up with a real objection to AIG other than, “they believe the Bible is the foundation of truth and I don’t, so they must be wrong in how they do science”. Also, it is not just Bible believing Christians who have noticed that evolution has flaws, about 10% of scientists in China now doubt Darwin… There is that famous quote from China that goes “In China we cannot question the government but we can question Darwin, in America you can question the government but you can’t question Darwin…” Even the former Atheist philospher turned Deist Anthony Flew from Oxford University was convinced by the arguments for intelligent design. Now of course he isn’t a young earth creationist, but even he considers many of the basic points against evolution to be valid. You also set up a false dichotomy concerning scientists being Christians. You say that since all creationist scientists are Christians they must be biased because no non-Christian also accepts that view… What you fail to realize is that the majority of all creation scientists today USED to be evolutionists. However, when they broke out of their indoctrination and the saw the evidence for what it is, that it fits better with the young earth model, they did what any rational person would do when confronted with evidence… CONVERT TO THAT WAY OF THINKING! Still, I would like to know what you’re worldview is, and how do you think that we go about finding truth, or rather how do we any idea that there is truth out there to find?
Colin,
You said: “You seem to not have answered anything that I said, or have come up with a real objection to AIG other than, “they believe the Bible is the foundation of truth and I don’t, so they must be wrong in how they do science”. “
I’m pretty sure I have answered you.
Regarding AIG and science, you misunderstand my position. The fact that the AIG people hold a certain position about the Bible does not disqualify them from being scientists. However, the fact that they readily admit they will discard any evidence on evolution that disagrees with their point of view *does* disqualify them. Science is evidence-based, and the AIG crowd will only accept whatever stories confirm their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong (although I obviously believe they are) but it does mean they’re not qualified to call themselves scientists.
You said: “There is that famous quote from China that goes “In China we cannot question the government but we can question Darwin, in America you can question the government but you can’t question Darwin…”
Once again, this seems to be a famous quote that is only famous within Evangelicalism. It is also patently untrue, as is evidenced by the deluge of attempts to undermine science and replace it with religion-approved dogma. No one has been thrown in jail, lost their job, or been found unelectable because they believe the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago. This time around, we even have a Mormon on the ballot. When was the last time an atheist was considered a serious candidate for the presidency?
You said: “What you fail to realize is that the majority of all creation scientists today USED to be evolutionists.”
That sounds like someone’s wishful thinking. Where did you come by this idea?
You said, “Still, I would like to know what you’re worldview is, and how do you think that we go about finding truth, or rather how do we any idea that there is truth out there to find?”
I think I answered this before, but I’m a free thinker. That’s my worldview. There is only one factual reality, and we search for it by exploring the available evidence over time (and generations). Presently, we lack the information to know the answers to some questions, such as “is there a guiding intelligence in the universe.” I’m open-minded, but I do believe that extraordinary claims (psychic gifts, the inerrancy of the Bible, Creationism, etc.) require extraordinary evidence. So far, I haven’t seen any such extraordinary evidence.
Skep
The witness of the Spirit in a mans heart, is that “extraordinary evidence”; but then, this still requires a “leap of faith”.
Most of us are oddballs, would you not agree? I believe we are referred to as “peculiar”.
Skeptimal,
I did some research on that quote and it would be difficult to confirm. However, it is a fact that a large majority of Chinese scientists now have doubts about Darwin.
I would definitly reject AIG’s claim that if anything contradicts scripture it must automatically be thrown out… There could be many reasons why some data contradicts scripture (does it really contradict or seem to contradict based on a fallacious interpretation?). This is why often I am open to the old earth/progressive creation view of Genesis. This view rejects macro-evolution but does agree that the earth is Old and creation was done in stages. The main organization that endorses this view is Reasons to Believe, I recommend you check out their website. Honestly though the only reason I have not endorsed the young earth view is because of the scientific evidence I have seen in favor the young earth view. However, I have seen Christians show biblical evidence for an Old Earth.
“No one has been thrown in jail, lost their job, or been found unelectable because they believe the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago.”
Actually many professors have lost their jobs for endorsing ID. I never claimed that anyone has been thrown in jail…
According to your worldview it sounds as if you are a logical positivist… In other words you believe that if we use our reason and the scientific method we can slowly assemble truth by using these tools to investigate the “data” we come into contact with to work our way towards “truth”… However, this view practically doesn’t exist anymore in the realm of philosophy because it assumes that there is some basis for the existence of “data” without giving a metaphysical reason. As a Theist I believe that there exist an eternally omniscient rational mind known as God. I believe that he “informs” matter and the universe giving it an ordered rational existence, thereby giving “data” a basis in reality. It (data) is simply a real manifestation of the mind of God that is coming into contact with my mind which is created in his image and therefore can comprehend it. If you do not have a theistic presupposition to reality you cannot be sure of anything because an absolute body of knowledge cannot exist, because there is not consciousness expect the illusion we call consciousness that is created by our brains. Things aren’t ordered or rational they just “appear” that way. Hence why the atheist argues against Intelligent Design by saying that the universe and life isn’t designed it just “appears” that way. Anything that “seems” rational or absolute is just a construct of our brains which are nothing but a randomn collection of tissue of electricity that sprung up in the universe. This is why modern secularism has led to the dispair of post-modernism… I can give my reasons why I believe this infinite mind has communicated his special revelation in the Bible, but I would like to ask you this: are you an atheist, agnostic, or theist in your presuppositions?
Don,
You said: “Most of us are oddballs, would you not agree? I believe we are referred to as “peculiar”.
No, I wouldn’t say that at all. I think it’s a normal human trait to want to understand how we fit into the big picture, and I think it’s common to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, atheists, agnostics and the rest. Besides, it’s considered unusual NOT to be a Christian in the U.S.
As for the witness of the Spirit, let’s suppose for a minute that it *is* evidence of a sort: we have two billion men and women believing that a supernatural being has impacted them directly, touching their consciences and providing confidence in certain beliefs. For centuries, this has been enough evidence for the majority of westerners to convert to Christianity. Furthermore, the various branches of Christianity make up the largest coalition of religions in the world. That certainly can’t be ignored.
I guess my question becomes: how much confidence should a man or woman put in that experience? Obviously, having had such an experience, it would be fickle to ignore it the first time you come up against evidence that seems to contradict those beliefs. Not only that, but we can’t all go to seminary AND become experts on the sciences, so why should we not just take comfort in the faith and let others worry about the scoffing of the faithless? Besides, life is a lot easier for Christians, because Christians are “good people,” but you have to be leery of those rogue non-Christians that won’t fall into line. If you give up your faith, how can you be considered a good person?
I think this reasoning is why many people take refuge in the belief that the truth can only be understood by revelation. If you cling to that belief, then you can dismiss contrary arguments as the “natural” understanding of “natural” men, who are blinded to the truth by their sin.
I disagree with that view. I think that any belief system that requires you to ignore or explain away conflicting information is not worth having. You mention leaps of faith, and this is mine: that the truth is worth having, even if it is difficult to accept. Can I prove there are no gods? I neither can nor want to. But I’m not going to believe things like the inerrancy of the Bible or creationism, when there is ample evidence proving them untrue, just so that my life can be easier.
Matthew 12:38-45
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
Skeptimal,
First of all I would like to point out that I think you’re perception is skewed about Christianity in America… I do not think that it is considered “normal” to be a Christian in America anymore. When friends and family members (many who claim to be nominally “christian”) found out that I was converted the most they reacted was with awkward silence… Christians a poked fun of in shows like the simpsons, southpark, arrested devolopment and many others. In fact, I cannot think of one television show that hasn’t had at least one episode making Christians look like a joke… I just started renting a new series called “the Unit” about Delta Force and even that show had an episode where they rescue Christian missionaries that are made out to be whiny fanatical brats… So this idea of Christian dominance and atheist persecution that is touted by Sam Harris and others I believe is nothing but propoghanda that if it has any basis in reality, is limited to isolated incedents…
You stated that there is ample evidence that the Bible isn’t true… Could you please provide me with some of this evidence?
Skep
Thanks for the dialog. My point is established. You decide for you, I decide for myself. The “leap of faith” quote was from one of your previous posts. I was, and still am, in agreement with you, that is what it takes. Also, “refuge” is another correct term I accept wholeheartedly. You seem to understand the mechanics of this. BTW, my post was for the benefit of many, not one. If this style of discussion formate is all we have as Christians to offer the world, you are correct in some of your positions. Fortunately for all, it is not. We argue a point not won through debate.
Acknowledging you will find this statement to be of a “weak” nature, my desire is that your eyes will also see as mine have.
May the Lord bless you also
Colin,
You said: “First of all I would like to point out that I think you’re perception is skewed about Christianity in America… I do not think that it is considered “normal” to be a Christian in America anymore.”1
When friends and family members (many who claim to be nominally “christian”) found out that I was converted the most they reacted was with awkward silence…”
I don’t mean this in an unkind way, but I have to wonder how obvious it was to them that you considered them “nominal” Christians, and whether that relegation to second-class Christianity played a role in how they responded. Are you saying that you think it would have been just fine with them if you’d announced you were no longer a Christian? Because I think you’d find they wouldn’t have been as silent in their disapproval.
You mention ridicule of Christianity by certain television shows. I think the record is hazy regarding television’s portrayal of Christianity. You’re correct that sometimes fundamentalists are ridiculed, but Christianity in general seldom is. In fact, I think if you had a show come on prime-time television questioning the validity of the Bible, the outcry would be such that the network would probably pull the show. The same I would also point out to you that there have been shows like “Touched by An Angel” that could hardly be called anti-Christian. The Simpsons actually treats religion relatively kindly: Marge is a Christian, and although Ned Flanders is not the hero of the show, he’s a very likeable character. As for Southpark: I wouldn’t take that personally. I don’t think there’s any group, religious or not, that those guys don’t make regular fun of.
Outside of television (and movies), Christians hold all the trump cards. Every candidate for president is Christian, and only one member of Congress admits to being an agnostic. The rest are either Jewish or Christian except for one Muslim. The supreme court is dominated by right-wing Christians. Public discourse is so controlled by Christianity that if a person is atheist or humanist, his of her credentials as an American are often called into question. I’m not getting this from Sam Harris, I’m getting this from what I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Now, while I don’t think non-Christians get a fair shake in the U.S., I wouldn’t (yet) call it persecution. In fact, it’s better than it used to be, because during the Cold War, being atheist was synonymous with being Communist. Recently, there was a period after 9/11 that got very scary for some of us, but the country has settled down some for the moment.
Regarding evidence that the Bible is not true, we’ve covered some of it, in that the world is older than 6,000 years, was not created in seven days, is not flat with four corners, and is not separated from space by a firmament known as heaven.
Beyond that, the Bible is factually self-contradictory at critical points, like the resurrection of Jesus.
Don,
You said: “We argue a point not won through debate. Acknowledging you will find this statement to be of a “weak” nature, my desire is that your eyes will also see as mine have.”
I appreciate the sentiment behind your post and the respectful nature of your posts on this site.
Skeptimal,
What qualifies as nominally Christian? They were baptized… And maybe attend Church (Catholic) on Christmas and Easter. I just call them nominal Christians because that is probably what they would fill out as their “religion” on a survey, but they definitly aren’t Christians by the standard of historic Christianity and the Bible. And no, there are plenty of people in my family who are non-Christian and all over books like the Da Vinci Code and they aren’t even criticized at all… To say that a television show that cristizes the historicity of Christianity would not be allowed is ridiculous… Turn on the history channel… Sure maybe one or two biblical documentaries they show are pro-Bible. The rest are all Da Vinci Code and Bart Ehrman “Misquoting Jesus” Trash, fallacious claims that have been answered by scholars in many books and publications. What about national geographic that put forth the so called “gospel of Judas” several years ago? The media as they always do around Easter presented it as their anti-Christian “easter surprise”, and claimed “Christianity Shaken!”. However, the documentary was filled with errors/lies (They claimed the gospel of Mark doesn’t name Judas as bad) and it has now even been discovered entire portions of this “gospel” (it was written in the 3rd century) was mistranslated by them. And you’re saying that the media is under so much pressure by the “church” in this country that these things can’t happen?
The Supreme Court, dominated by Right Wing Christians?? Even liberals admit that they run the courts in this country and are proud of it. Bush appointed one “maybe” conservative Judge last year, that hardly qualifies as being dominated by Right-Wing Christians. If thats the case why is abortion still legal?
Atheists during the Cold War were labeled as communists and rightly so for the most part. Mainly because… most of them admittedly were! Madalyn Murray O’haire who had prayer removed from schools was a very involved communist who even tried to immigrate to Russia as her son turned Christian Pastor has revealed in his autobiography.
“Regarding evidence that the Bible is not true, we’ve covered some of it, in that the world is older than 6,000 years, was not created in seven days, is not flat with four corners, and is not separated from space by a firmament known as heaven.”
Well I thought I answered pretty well the fact that the age of the earth isn’t as set as many evolutionists claim that it is… Regardless, there are plenty of scholars who believe the scriptures and firmly believe it teaches the earth is Old. The Bible’s references to the “four-corners of the earth” have nothing to do with a dogmatic statement concerning the earth being flat. This is simply a figure of speach concerning the 4 compass points that is still used today. The problem here is that many “skeptics” approach the Bible the same way fundementalists do, as if it was written to them yesterday. They do not take into account historical context, the language different books were translated from, and the basic themes and audience of each book. It is easy to search through the Bible to find many so-called contradictions but virtually all Bible “contradictions” have been answered for decades. You’re objection concerning the ressurection has also long been answered. One account saying “A” occured, and another account saying “A” and “B” occcured is not a contradiction. A contradiction is saying “A” occured and “A” didn’t occur. Here is a website that demonstrates that all of the different accounts of the ressurection can easily be put together to tell one coherent story…
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_9.htm
I would also recommend you read through this website, the responded to the entire book “Letter To a Christian Nation”
http://www.tektonics.org/