I would like to apologize for saying "ID is the side accused of not thinking!" implying the other side does not. That was an ad hominem attack. The issue is what needs to be dealt with, not the messenger.
As far as your accusation that my comments reveal that I do not think for myself and that I just believe what I am told, I disagree. I very much do think about what I believe (I'm not in a PhD program, but that doesn't mean I don't think deeply about these sorts of issues).
I do have a number of questions about naturalism that I need answered, and best to "go to the horse's mouth." So to speak. Mind if I grill you? Not to convert you or anything, but just so I can get a better understanding of what a Naturalist believes. Email me or something.
Too bad you didn't read too closely. His point was that astrology was a theory at one point which was considered scientific, and now has been proven incorrect. His "redefinition" of science is not a redefinition at all but merely using the term science as scientists use it and not as lobyists use it.
Oh the irony: ID is the side accused of not thinking!
Have you ever even read any works from the ID movement? I would recommend Michael Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box (It is clear you haven't read it). As a six-day creationist, I am well aware of the ID movement and I find them surprisingly not attached to Christianity at all. They are not religiously motivated (any more than I think you are). If you want to call yourself a scientist, you must allow this hypothesis consideration.
Enjoyed your post (honestly). As a fundamentalist, it is interesting to see Atheists attempt to "proselytize" others. However, there are several straw man's in your argument I feel obligated to correct:
Being a true human being, being Man, means, effectively, the same thing as being an adult - accepting final responsibility for your actions.
This is a foundational principle of Christianity, that all people are in the end responsible for their own actions (which is why I oppose many conclusions of psychology). This is why the concept of an afterlife is so pivotal in the Christian worldview.
Conversely, saying "I believe in God, so he'll forgive me", is the whining of a small child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I agree with you completely. James 2 has some pretty strong attacks on those who use this arguments.
And there are some just downright wrong statements
Whether God exists or not, belief in him stunts the development of Man
. I don't know about you, but I want to believe the truth. If that is atheism, so be it. If Christianity, okay. If something else, just as well. However, what I have found points strongly to Christ.
Ultimately, consider this - suppose God really does exist. What does he want from his creatures?
I think he would let us know what he wants. And I believe he has. Speculation gets us nowhere.
You are right that belief in God does indicate weakness. But, I see this is an incredibly positive thing: Similar to a cancer patient acknowledging his bleak future and then accepting treatment (forgiveness provided through Christ).
However, it is not all that great. Acknowledging that most of the world is incredibly evil is hard to do. And following the command of God even when it hurts is seldom comforting. Furthermore, realizing that most of the world is on the path to Hell is the kicker for me. However, as I mentioned before, I am bound to believe what is true and not what I like.
I'm a fundamentalist, but please hear me out.
I haven't talked to any rabbi's, but I something just as good: my Hebrew Professor. From everything he says about his time at grad school, the rabbi's believe that the Creation account is historical narrative, which should be taken in the same manner as the historical accounts of the Babylonian captivity.
From a literary standpoint there are three ways to take the Genesis account:
1) The account is an historical narrative that the original writer genuinely believed was true. But the original writer was wrong and it is only a myth.
2) The account is a poetic composition that the original author intended to communicate spiritual truth but is meant to be interpreted figuratively, similar to Revelation and Psalms.
3) The account is an historical narrative that the original writer believed was true and it actually is true.
Evolutionists unanimously agree that #1 is correct. The Hebrew Rabbis (who know the original Hebrew Text of the entire Old Testament) agree that #1 is their stance as well. Fundamentalists obviously take stance #3. Notice the point of agreement between those who reject Genesis as false and those who take it literally true: it was meant to be interpreted literally.
Those who do not take it literally are attempting to meld two completely incompatible philosophies: Christianity and Atheistic Materialism.
Good comments...As a fundamentalist, I wrestled with these issues until I took Hebrew and really began to see Genesis for what it is.
I would like to read that book, seems interesting and if I believe something that isn't true, then I will drop it like a hot rock.
Here's my thought on what you said:
Genesis is a polemic (attack) against the Egyptian creation myths for several reasons:
1) Note what the author calls the sun and the moon. "Greater Light" and "Lesser Light". He doesn't even use the Hebrew word for Sun and Moon. The reason is because in ancient Near Eastern culture: "Sun" = 'Sun God' and "Moon" = 'Moon God'. He didn't use that name because he wanted to distinguish them.
2) There is no fighting to begin creation. YHWH doesn't fight with any other gods because there are none (Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic by the way; Ancient Egyptian culture was polytheistic).
3) Man is the pinacle of Creation in Genesis, he is an afterthought in the pagan cultures of the day.
As for the 2 creation stories, it can easily be reconciled by the fact that one is focusing on the Creation of the entire world, whereas the second focuses on the creation of the Garden of Eden and man.
Hope that keeps ya thinking...I would welcome debate.
I posted below MightyMartian, but here's why I appreciate ID (as a fundamentalist)...Please don't shoot me until you hear my points.
1) Evolution is a model with a similar monopoly on academia that the Catholic Church had about 500 years ago (remember the opposition Galileo and Copernicus encountered). There are a few who determine what to believe (Dawkins, Gould, etc.) and everyone else must fall in line with a particular set of foundational doctrines or else risk excommunication.
2) Intelligent Design challenges the structure in place. It must be heard and considered like other Scientific conclusions. If it is not an accurate description of the world, then it will be thrown out, if not then it must be given credence.
3) Creationism has attempted to bring open discussion about the theory of evolution to the table, but has been prevented from doing so because it is wrongly regarded as just a "religion".
4) Christian Creationism is a worldview, just like materialistic atheism and must be dealt with as a way to view the entire world. It must be dealt with on a philosophic and foundational level before the various other issues can be confronted (Evolution being one of those). On the philosophic level, Christianity dwarfs all other alternatives (yet this is outside the scope of this post).
I hope this explains my perspective better. I welcome feedback.
This is my humble understanding of ID (I'm a "fundy" but please hear me out):
The leaders of the movement have nothing to do with "fundamentalism". Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is probably the Flagship laymen's book on the whole matter. The whole idea boils down to what Behe calls "irreducible complexity": every part must be present and functioning for the unit to work at all (he cites the bacterial flagellum and the human immune system as two examples). No selective advantage can be provided to an organism unless a number of key parts are available and each part by itself would be a selective disadvantage if not accompanied by every other part. He compares it to a mousetrap-leave out an single piece and the rest of it doesn't function. Its all or nothing.
With that said, a lot of fundamentalists have latched onto the ID movement because it does not rule out the possibility of a creator from the start, like materialistic evolution does, (an unscientific assumption I might add).
I've read Hume, but its been a while. Can anyone summarize his points? Thanks in advance.
I like your Ad Hominem and straw man attacks on us (the "demonic" fundy's). And yes, I have read up on Evolution, very much so (I firmly believe that I should study all worldviews, even ones that I may disagree with, they may be right at times); as I assume you have done for Creation. In which case, you would know that the entire idea that a human zygote looks like a fish is based on an obselete and inaccurate photograph from several decades ago. In reality, a human zygote looks like a human zygote and a fish looks like a fish.
One single fact cannot deal with an entire worldview. The Christian worldview must be examined in its entireity as the Atheistic Materialistic worldview must as well. This is well outside the scope of this post, however i am willing to discuss it.
I appreciate the dialog, it is mentally stimulating for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to apologize for saying "ID is the side accused of not thinking!" implying the other side does not. That was an ad hominem attack. The issue is what needs to be dealt with, not the messenger. As far as your accusation that my comments reveal that I do not think for myself and that I just believe what I am told, I disagree. I very much do think about what I believe (I'm not in a PhD program, but that doesn't mean I don't think deeply about these sorts of issues). I do have a number of questions about naturalism that I need answered, and best to "go to the horse's mouth." So to speak. Mind if I grill you? Not to convert you or anything, but just so I can get a better understanding of what a Naturalist believes. Email me or something.
Too bad you didn't read too closely. His point was that astrology was a theory at one point which was considered scientific, and now has been proven incorrect. His "redefinition" of science is not a redefinition at all but merely using the term science as scientists use it and not as lobyists use it. Oh the irony: ID is the side accused of not thinking!
Have you ever even read any works from the ID movement? I would recommend Michael Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box (It is clear you haven't read it). As a six-day creationist, I am well aware of the ID movement and I find them surprisingly not attached to Christianity at all. They are not religiously motivated (any more than I think you are). If you want to call yourself a scientist, you must allow this hypothesis consideration.
I'm a fundamentalist, but please hear me out. I haven't talked to any rabbi's, but I something just as good: my Hebrew Professor. From everything he says about his time at grad school, the rabbi's believe that the Creation account is historical narrative, which should be taken in the same manner as the historical accounts of the Babylonian captivity. From a literary standpoint there are three ways to take the Genesis account: 1) The account is an historical narrative that the original writer genuinely believed was true. But the original writer was wrong and it is only a myth. 2) The account is a poetic composition that the original author intended to communicate spiritual truth but is meant to be interpreted figuratively, similar to Revelation and Psalms. 3) The account is an historical narrative that the original writer believed was true and it actually is true. Evolutionists unanimously agree that #1 is correct. The Hebrew Rabbis (who know the original Hebrew Text of the entire Old Testament) agree that #1 is their stance as well. Fundamentalists obviously take stance #3. Notice the point of agreement between those who reject Genesis as false and those who take it literally true: it was meant to be interpreted literally. Those who do not take it literally are attempting to meld two completely incompatible philosophies: Christianity and Atheistic Materialism.
Good comments...As a fundamentalist, I wrestled with these issues until I took Hebrew and really began to see Genesis for what it is. I would like to read that book, seems interesting and if I believe something that isn't true, then I will drop it like a hot rock. Here's my thought on what you said: Genesis is a polemic (attack) against the Egyptian creation myths for several reasons: 1) Note what the author calls the sun and the moon. "Greater Light" and "Lesser Light". He doesn't even use the Hebrew word for Sun and Moon. The reason is because in ancient Near Eastern culture: "Sun" = 'Sun God' and "Moon" = 'Moon God'. He didn't use that name because he wanted to distinguish them. 2) There is no fighting to begin creation. YHWH doesn't fight with any other gods because there are none (Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic by the way; Ancient Egyptian culture was polytheistic). 3) Man is the pinacle of Creation in Genesis, he is an afterthought in the pagan cultures of the day. As for the 2 creation stories, it can easily be reconciled by the fact that one is focusing on the Creation of the entire world, whereas the second focuses on the creation of the Garden of Eden and man. Hope that keeps ya thinking...I would welcome debate.
I posted below MightyMartian, but here's why I appreciate ID (as a fundamentalist)...Please don't shoot me until you hear my points. 1) Evolution is a model with a similar monopoly on academia that the Catholic Church had about 500 years ago (remember the opposition Galileo and Copernicus encountered). There are a few who determine what to believe (Dawkins, Gould, etc.) and everyone else must fall in line with a particular set of foundational doctrines or else risk excommunication. 2) Intelligent Design challenges the structure in place. It must be heard and considered like other Scientific conclusions. If it is not an accurate description of the world, then it will be thrown out, if not then it must be given credence. 3) Creationism has attempted to bring open discussion about the theory of evolution to the table, but has been prevented from doing so because it is wrongly regarded as just a "religion". 4) Christian Creationism is a worldview, just like materialistic atheism and must be dealt with as a way to view the entire world. It must be dealt with on a philosophic and foundational level before the various other issues can be confronted (Evolution being one of those). On the philosophic level, Christianity dwarfs all other alternatives (yet this is outside the scope of this post). I hope this explains my perspective better. I welcome feedback.
This is my humble understanding of ID (I'm a "fundy" but please hear me out): The leaders of the movement have nothing to do with "fundamentalism". Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is probably the Flagship laymen's book on the whole matter. The whole idea boils down to what Behe calls "irreducible complexity": every part must be present and functioning for the unit to work at all (he cites the bacterial flagellum and the human immune system as two examples). No selective advantage can be provided to an organism unless a number of key parts are available and each part by itself would be a selective disadvantage if not accompanied by every other part. He compares it to a mousetrap-leave out an single piece and the rest of it doesn't function. Its all or nothing. With that said, a lot of fundamentalists have latched onto the ID movement because it does not rule out the possibility of a creator from the start, like materialistic evolution does, (an unscientific assumption I might add). I've read Hume, but its been a while. Can anyone summarize his points? Thanks in advance.
I like your Ad Hominem and straw man attacks on us (the "demonic" fundy's). And yes, I have read up on Evolution, very much so (I firmly believe that I should study all worldviews, even ones that I may disagree with, they may be right at times); as I assume you have done for Creation. In which case, you would know that the entire idea that a human zygote looks like a fish is based on an obselete and inaccurate photograph from several decades ago. In reality, a human zygote looks like a human zygote and a fish looks like a fish. One single fact cannot deal with an entire worldview. The Christian worldview must be examined in its entireity as the Atheistic Materialistic worldview must as well. This is well outside the scope of this post, however i am willing to discuss it. I appreciate the dialog, it is mentally stimulating for me.