Religious defense by refusal to discuss.

[Hilit]

So I asked my Mother if she believed in evolution and her answer was yes. Yet the next day I was discussing religion in schools with her and she said the reason she sent me to a Christian school was because she believed in god.

Confused, I asked her how she could believe in evolution and God as they contradict each other to which she replied:

"Well then I don't believe in evolution"

After this she refused to discuss the matter further.

Has anyone else ever encountered someone basically defending their faith by just refusing to talk about it? Stopping you before the conversation gets to "scary" for them?

[Darat]

Yes and if you stick around you'll see it often happening in this Forum.

[Madalch]

Yes and if you stick around you'll see it often happening in this Forum.
Plonk!

[six7s]

Has anyone else ever encountered someone basically defending their faith by just refusing to talk about it? Stopping you before the conversation gets to "scary" for them?

That's all I have ever encountered :mad:

Has anyone ever encountered someone defending their faith by actually agreeing to talk about it?

If so, I'd love to see a transcript

[ceo_esq]

Hilit, this may be incidental to the point of your post, but it's worth noting that belief in evolution and belief in God are not formally inconsistent. I'm guessing they didn't teach that at the Christian school you went to?

[Hilit]

Hilit, this may be incidental to the point of your post, but it's worth noting that belief in evolution and belief in God are not formally inconsistent. I'm guessing they didn't teach that at the Christian school you went to?

The minister who came to school to talk to us about evolution and god was very much an "evolution is garbage and fossils are there to test our faith" sort of man.

[Denver]

One thing to be sensitive to, is that when someone is (or is not) defending their deep beliefs, they may be doing more than that. They may be defending themselves, their sense of worth, their well-being, and their relationships to others who are important to them, and have common beliefs with them.

Refusing to enter into an argument may be their way of keeping these things safe.

So, be careful when you are challenging these things. You may feel all you're doing is helping to educate, and entering into a purely intellectual exercise. And when the other person is on the same page, that's cool. But if not, you could be seen as trying to provoke them, or attack them, or hurt them.

[bokonon]

The minister who came to school to talk to us about evolution and god was very much an "evolution is garbage and fossils are there to test our faith" sort of man.
Did anyone ask him why a god who is said to know everyone's innermost thoughts needs to "test" anyone's faith?

That's kind of like planting lipstick on my collar and perfume on my johnson to "test" my wife's devotion.

[six7s]

But if not, you could be seen as trying to provoke them, or attack them, or hurt them.

Also note that, although their belief system might provoke, attack and/or hurt you (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22god+hates%22&btnG=Search), they are nevertheless regarded (by themselves and their apologists) as being somehow beyond reproach

[fromdownunder]

Given that a minimum of 50% of the Christians on this mudball accept evolution (the RC Church for starters), and the figure is probably a lot higher, the theory can be accepted along with a belief in God. Only believeing a literal 6 day creation, a world wide fludde, and an inerrant Bible precludes an acceptance of evolution.

As an aside, I hate the term "believe in" evolution. I don't "believe in" evolution, in the same way that I don't "believe in" gravity. I find these the best current explanations we have for observed events.

Norm

[Seismosaurus]

I had a discussion with a religious friend a few weeks back. We were both perfectly calm and polite about it, and she was quite willing to discuss the issues and didn't shy away from anything at all.

It was quite surreal to me, actually. She tried the "god defines right" line on me; by the end of it she admitted that even if she lived in the old testament times she would disobey orders direct from god concerning killing children and such; freely admitted that she picked and chose whatever parts of the bible she wanted to follow; freely admitted that this meant there was a moral standard separate from her religion, which she used to judge which parts of her religion should be followed; freely admitted that she could just as easily dispense with the bible altogether and just live by this moral code directly; freely admitted that all this was horribly inconsistent and illogical and basically made no sense at all...

And flatly told me that none of that made the slightest difference, and she still regarded herself as a firm believer in god as the ultimate source of good.

I just don't get how she can manage to do that, but she did.

[six7s]

One word: delusional

Another word: speciousness

[Seismosaurus]

Based on just knowing her in general, she fits the category I think most believers fall into. She finds her religious beliefs comforting, and she's not willing to give them up simply because it wouldn't be comfortable for her to do so. She doesn't particularly care about being logical or consistent, she just wants to feel good about herself and being a churchgoer helps her do that.

[Foster Zygote]

The minister who came to school to talk to us about evolution and god was very much an "evolution is garbage and fossils are there to test our faith" sort of man.

Welcome.

Although I am an atheist and an evolutionist, I know many Christians who do not find the facts of evolutionary biology to be incompatible with their Christian beliefs. That being said, I've also encountered many who would insist that the Earth is flat and the sun is made of fetid dingo kidneys if they interpreted the Bible to claim so.

[Darth Rotor]

Also note that, although their belief system might provoke, attack and/or hurt you (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22god+hates%22&btnG=Search), they are nevertheless regarded (by themselves and their apologists) as being somehow beyond reproach
Please be careful with matches around those strawmen that you have so carefully constructed. Extrapolation is an inexact tool.

DR

[PAC]

With my fundamentalist christian family members all discussion stops, the air becomes thick with tension, I am cast as evil then life goes on. They want to discuss (read force their ideas on to everyone else in the room) until an intelligent question is asked or point is made. They don't even try to make it interesting by arguing.

[six7s]

Given that a minimum of 50% of the Christians on this mudball accept evolution (the RC Church for starters)

As a (col)lapsed catholic (from a parish where uttering the phrase 'natural selection' would probably cause the majority of the congregation to envisage picking plain chocolates from the pick'n'mix stand) I find this figure rather difficult to swallow without supporting data

Got any?

the theory can be accepted along with a belief in God

This I can accept, knowing that RCism is nothing if not inconsistent :)

[six7s]

Also note that, although their belief system might provoke, attack and/or hurt you (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22god+hates%22&btnG=Search), they are nevertheless regarded (by themselves and their apologists) as being somehow beyond reproachPlease be careful with matches around those strawmen that you have so carefully constructed

*Sigh*

For the hard-of-thinking, the link in question leads to Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,670,000 for "god hates" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22god+hates%22&btnG=Search), where - apart from a few parody sites - you will find ample evidence that provocation, attacks and/or harm are, in reality, widespread tactics employed by deists

It's a pity that your distorted world view conflicts with reality to the extent that you seem incapable of following a link posted by someone other than an outright apologist

Extrapolation is an inexact tool

Other than illustrating that you have no logical argument to offer, is there a point to this non-sequitur?

[fromdownunder]

As a (col)lapsed catholic (from a parish where uttering the phrase 'natural selection' would probably cause the majority of the congregation to envisage picking plain chocolates from the pick'n'mix stand) I find this figure rather difficult to swallow without supporting data

Got any?

Assuming that the RCs accept what the Pope says, and most of the more recent Popes have stated that the scientific data for evolution is acceptable (I realise that this statement was somewhat convoluted):

Britannica 2007 Year Book:

Total Christians (rounding by me): 2.173 Billion
Roman Catholics: 1.135 Billion

That's my 50% figure. In addition, and outside of the evangelical churches in the States (and a growing movement in - heaven forbid - Australia, fortunately small in total numbers) very few other Church groups deny evolution.

Most traditional Protestants (including my old home, the CofE), again excepting fundamentalists, make up a further 500 million people a further 25% of Christians), generally accept evolution as well. That gets us to 75% of the Worlds Christians, give or take, without considering other Christian groupings.

OK, I accept that most people do not even think about the subject, as the OP showed, but if questions relating to evolution are correctly put, and not based on pressing buttons for emotional responses, most reasonable people, including those with religious faith, will agree that evolution occurs.

Norm

[A Christian Sceptic]

So I asked my Mother if she believed in evolution and her answer was yes. Yet the next day I was discussing religion in schools with her and she said the reason she sent me to a Christian school was because she believed in god.

Confused, I asked her how she could believe in evolution and God as they contradict each other to which she replied:

"Well then I don't believe in evolution"

After this she refused to discuss the matter further.

Has anyone else ever encountered someone basically defending their faith by just refusing to talk about it? Stopping you before the conversation gets to "scary" for them?

Well - she apparently did not have any conflict with believing in both, but once you told her she could only believe in one or the other you put her in the position of choosing - well - one or the other. Given she believed in both before your discussion she apparently believes God is more important since that's the one she chose from the two. To bad she doesn't understand you can believe both if you want. Or maybe she didn't want to argue with you about it, since you already believe you can't believe both.

I tend to avoid discussions of both religion and politics with people in general - not because it's so "scary" but unless either side is really seeking to learn or change their mind the only other motivation for such a discussion is to argue. But that's just my personal experience and we all know how valued personal experience is on this forum. ;)

[shadron]

At least three reasons - 1) lots of people strive to avoid controversy in public, sometimes even in private; many don't feel they have the quickness to match their fervency. 2) Many Christians can handle the dissonance that may occur when they have both religion and science within; after all, Roman Catholics from Thomas Aquinas down to, but not including, the latest pope had no problems doing so, and the church contains a lot of Jesuits for whom science is as much a part of themselves as faith is; see also the example of the chief prosecution witness at the Dover trials (Ken Miller?), a devotional catholic who wrote the biology text that started the fight. 3) Some are probably just tired of hearing about it.

The most recurring form of the non-argument on the forum here involves the troll-like behavior of start a thread with an outrageous statement and simply never returning to the argument. I'd say about one of four threads in this forum are like that.

[rocketdodger]

I just wanted to say that "fetid dingo kidney's" made me laugh out loud, hard, and I am sick, so it hurt.

Thanks alot, zygote.

[schlitt]

I encounter this tecnique with my parents also. I have come to the conclusion they are somewhat aware of the fact their belief does not make sense logically, so they want to avoid having to consider the logic, so they do not have to abondon their comfort giving belief they have invested so much of themselves in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

26 pages and over 1,000 posts and still no real response to the thread question, Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366)

I spent the first couple pages just repeating over and over what I was getting at since the theist reaction was, I must have been looking to set up theists who could not, of course, support their beliefs with anything resembling real evidence. Supposedly I only opened the thread to bash them as they failed to provide evidence.

But what I had actually asked was to attempt to get at the major problem presented when believers were skeptical about all god beliefs except their own.

There is so far, still no real answer to the OP question in my entire thread. I'd say that fits the description in this thread of refusal to discuss something as a defense. It defends against the cognitive dissonance one's god beliefs cause.

[Wildy]

Confused, I asked her how she could believe in evolution and God as they contradict each other to which she replied...

Sorry, this bit doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution and God do not contradict each other.

[ntropy]

Theist, idealist--"they do more than rhyme..."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, this bit doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution and God do not contradict each other.It does if you believe the Adam and Eve/ original sin/ Jesus saves stories.

[Darat]

That's all I have ever encountered :mad:

Has anyone ever encountered someone defending their faith by actually agreeing to talk about it?

If so, I'd love to see a transcript


Actually yes many times and even on this very Forum.

[fromdownunder]

It does if you believe the Adam and Eve/ original sin/ Jesus saves stories.

Actually, this is not strictly true either. There are many Christians who accept the Adam and Eve story as metaphor rather than an actual event. And they live comfortably with both God and Scienctific explanations.

And I have even seen, on CF, arguments by somewhat more fundamentalist Christians who accept evolution, but also argue for a literal Adam and Eve whom God plonked into the mix at one point, or (as a further alternative) God picked out two pre-human individuals infused the first souls into them.

I suppose if people accept the scientific explanation as to how we are here, and also accept (to a limited extent) the Biblical explanation and the Christian God concept, they can find any number of ways to connect these two apparently conflicting ideas.

Norm

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, this is not strictly true either. There are many Christians who accept the Adam and Eve story as metaphor rather than an actual event. And they live comfortably with both God and Scienctific explanations.

And I have even seen, on CF, arguments by somewhat more fundamentalist Christians who accept evolution, but also argue for a literal Adam and Eve whom God plonked into the mix at one point, or (as a further alternative) God picked out two pre-human individuals infused the first souls into them.

I suppose if people accept the scientific explanation as to how we are here, and also accept (to a limited extent) the Biblical explanation and the Christian God concept, they can find any number of ways to connect these two apparently conflicting ideas.

NormFor every belief in the Bible evidence refutes, people change their claims and make the stories, metaphors or parables. It's like ever shifting sand, changing beliefs into metaphors and coming up with other apologies for why the Bible is not credible. And maybe in time, just as many believers of the Biblical religion accepted modern astronomy and cosmology by shifting what they believed was true into something else, the same will happen with evolution.

But there is a much much bigger problem trying to make evolution work along side the story of original sin. Jesus' whole existence and purpose was because of the Adam and Eve myth. And, Jesus was supposed to have existed in a time where believers believe the accounts of Jesus are accurate first person accounts. In other words, Adam and Eve and Genesis can be metaphors, but how would a Bible believer shift to claim the Jesus story was a metaphor? You can't.

So then it follows, if the Jesus story supposedly relates to a real event that was witnessed and recorded, then wouldn't Jesus have explained the details of that original sin in a more precise way than just leaving everyone believing the Adam and Eve metaphor?

To the Christian Evangelicals whose whole belief centers around their "personal relationship with Christ", you can see where Adam and Eve being a myth is harder to resolve than simply believing the origin of the Universe was described in the Bible as a metaphor.

Jesus supposedly died because of a very specific act, not because humans are generally sinful. It just makes no sense that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor if you are invested in the Jesus part of the Biblical religion. If Jesus isn't the looming focus of your beliefs, you can go with the last Pope's version. But for a whole lot of believers, Jesus' suffering and sacrifice is the overwhelming focus of their beliefs. Without Eve's original actions, the Jesus story just doesn't work for a lot of people.

It could just be that evolution is the issue now like the Earth centered Universe was a couple thousand years ago. But I think the resistance to evolution is not just a matter of the current times. I think resistance to the science of evolution is because it goes to the very heart of the beliefs of the Evangelical born agains.

Believers will of course, have to accept evolution eventually. You can't deny overwhelming evidence, especially when such things as modern medicine and agriculture are dependent upon it. The question is, will accepting the overwhelming evidence lead to a complete reworking of the Bible account of original sin to make it a metaphor and explain why Jesus didn't explain the real story to his disciples? Or, will evolution turn the tide of theism and eventually put Biblical myths on the shelf with Zeus and Pele?

[ceo_esq]

If Jesus isn't the looming focus of your beliefs, you can go with the last Pope's version.

Er... in what sense was Jesus not the looming focus of the last pope's beliefs?

[Beth]

26 pages and over 1,000 posts and still no real response to the thread question, Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366)

I thought ACS and Epeos provided reasonable answers to those questions. There are relatively few theists posting in this forum, so you can't really expect more than a few responses from people who actually hold god beliefs. But just because you don't agree with their method of differentiating their beliefs from others don't mean the question was not answered.

[Darth Rotor]

*Sigh*

For the hard-of-thinking, the link in question leads to Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,670,000 for "god hates" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22god+hates%22&btnG=Search), where - apart from a few parody sites - you will find ample evidence that provocation, attacks and/or harm are, in reality, widespread tactics employed by deists

It's a pity that your distorted world view conflicts with reality to the extent that you seem incapable of following a
When you ever take the blinders off, you'll find the world is remarkably interesting, what with all of the different sorts of people in it.

I note the ad hom directed at me, distorted world view, and invite you to piss off.

In a related thought, why do you use, interchangeably, the terms "theist" and "Deist," six?

For the rest of the Howlers in this thread, leaping all over the OP, have any of you ever heard this phrase?

"Life's too short."

Here's another.

"At some point, one realizes the fruitlessness of banging one's head against a brick wall. One then stops."

When you, six, choose to talk to people who think differently than you as people, rather than abstractions, you and I may have some fine discussion. Until then, you are invited to induce that popping sound that will precede you once again seeing daylight.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

26 pages and over 1,000 posts and still no real response to the thread question, Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366)
Define "real" in this sense.

Is it "something that confirms my bias" or is it something else?

DR

[Hilit]

Actually, this is not strictly true either. There are many Christians who accept the Adam and Eve story as metaphor rather than an actual event. And they live comfortably with both God and Scienctific explanations.

You mean "many apologists".

Its always the same. As soon as something in the Bible is proven to be fictitious suddenly it becomes a metaphor or symbolic.

[A Christian Sceptic]

For every belief in the Bible evidence refutes, people change their claims and make the stories, metaphors or parables. It's like ever shifting sand, changing beliefs into metaphors and coming up with other apologies for why the Bible is not credible. And maybe in time, just as many believers of the Biblical religion accepted modern astronomy and cosmology by shifting what they believed was true into something else, the same will happen with evolution.


I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of Christianity and in particular the historical beliefs of many Christians - but not taking Genesis is literal is nothing new. Many early Christians took it as metaphor long before evolution was thought about.


But there is a much much bigger problem trying to make evolution work along side the story of original sin. Jesus' whole existence and purpose was because of the Adam and Eve myth. And, Jesus was supposed to have existed in a time where believers believe the accounts of Jesus are accurate first person accounts.


I find Mitochondrial Eve rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Not that this is necessarily the Eve from the bible - but it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.



Jesus supposedly died because of a very specific act, not because humans are generally sinful.


I do believe the above belief you hold is only a belief some Christians hold. :) He was named Jesus for a reason.

[shadron]

Its always the same. As soon as something in the Bible is proven to be fictitious suddenly it becomes a metaphor or symbolic.

Have you given thought to the idea that, just perhaps, stronger minds than yours have tried out this question before? To them, you are the apologist for a new idea, rather than the reverse.

Many people down through the ages have considered the inability of sacred writ to handle aging well. There is a reason that the Roman Catholic church doesn't emphasize the Bible as much as protestants would have liked it to; it just doesn't make the intellectual grade through the years from 300AD to Martin Luther. It had to be buttressed and explained by church fathers (look up Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas; there are a slough of others) and the result was pretty much "It's a great metaphor and moral tale", long before Martin Luther and John Calvin decided it was neglected and in need of rehabilitation. So what you think is new ground you've forced the Christians into is actually old; they've been there before. That's why it's a hollow victory.

Shame on you, by the way, for badgering your mother. Young converts tend to be aggressive like that; I imagine she was quite embarrassed by you.

[siqr]

...it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.


Nah, it's not interesting. Either all humans are related or they're not. This time, this particular religion guessed right. But that's all it was: a guess.

Anyone can guess right. When science says we're all related, now, that's not some mystic's guess. That's a truth backed by patient, painstaking, unforgivingly self-critical research.

[Empress]

Has anyone else ever encountered someone basically defending their faith by just refusing to talk about it? Stopping you before the conversation gets to "scary" for them?

I'm an athiest raised in a Mormon home. Generally, my family has learned that if they don't preach at me, I never point out inconsistencies in their belief system. However, if they start in on me, I figure it's my right to point out how illogical what they're stating is.

My mother started in on my once, and I finally got sick of it, and explained to her that the Book of Mormon flew in the face of science. When she asked how, I explained to her that the Mormon belief that American Indians being descended from Middle Easterners was absurd, and that not only can one see with the naked eye that Amerinds look more akin to Asians than Middle Easterners, science has proved it through DNA studies. Mama blithely told me that the DNA was obviously wrong. I was flummoxed. I asked her didn't she believe in the science of DNA? It was used in Court all the time.

She responded that, yes, she believed in the science of DNA, but that in this case it was wrong, even when I explained that the studies had been peer reviewed and replicated. She still accepts DNA studies as good science, and still believes that the Americas were populated by the descendents of Levi. Go figure.

Obviously some people are capable of mental gymnastics that allow them to hold two opposing views at once. I am not able to do that, but I generally don't think it's my business to stop someone else from doing it--so long as they respect my views as well.

[bokonon]

Jesus supposedly died because of a very specific act, not because humans are generally sinful. It just makes no sense that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor if you are invested in the Jesus part of the Biblical religion.
Not really. "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." Viewing Adam and Eve as allegory doesn't change that.

Without Eve's original actions, the Jesus story just doesn't work for a lot of people.
It still works for plenty of others.

Believers will of course, have to accept evolution eventually. You can't deny overwhelming evidence, especially when such things as modern medicine and agriculture are dependent upon it.
If only that were true. People deny overwhelming evidence all the time, and I don't think cranking the level of "overwhelming" up to 11 is going to change that. Sure, the people who continue to deny evolution probably won't be major players in advancing scientific knowledge, but such people have always been a small minority of the total population. Whether or not one accepts evolution has no impact on one's ability to drive a truck, produce a Broadway show, write computer programs, sell real estate, build bridges, manufacture electronics, or a thousand other occupations through which human beings contribute to society and earn a living.

One can even oppose scientific methodology while enjoying all the benefits that methodology has spawned.

I think the best we can hope for is that the people who deny the evidence will be made irrelevant in terms of directing public policy. If it doesn't happen in the United States, then the United States will simply begin to fall behind the rest of the world, where ideas are not so artificially repressed by dogma. About a thousand years ago, Islamic societies were scientifically advanced; today, they're a scientific backwater. If the United States follows Iran down that road, the Europeans or the Chinese or the Japanese will pick up the torch and leave us in the same dust. I don't think, short of an extinction event, that scientific progress will be reversed, it's just a question of where it will happen.

The question is, will accepting the overwhelming evidence lead to a complete reworking of the Bible account of original sin to make it a metaphor and explain why Jesus didn't explain the real story to his disciples? Or, will evolution turn the tide of theism and eventually put Biblical myths on the shelf with Zeus and Pele?
The dinosaurs ruled the earth for hundreds of millions of years. If mankind manages to hang on for even a million more, I can't imagine that Bible stories (if they're remembered at all) will be considered anything more than a quaint collection of myths. Human lives are so short in the grand scheme of things that it's difficult to appreciate sometimes just how radically things (and especially something as malleable as ideas) can change over time.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I don't think this kind of shutting down is unique to religious issues. Introduce facts and figures into an ideological political debate, and you often get the same.

People are not, and were never supposed to be, especially rational. Trust me, I've seen the blueprints.

[Silentknight]

So I asked my Mother if she believed in evolution and her answer was yes. Yet the next day I was discussing religion in schools with her and she said the reason she sent me to a Christian school was because she believed in god.

Confused, I asked her how she could believe in evolution and God as they contradict each other to which she replied:

"Well then I don't believe in evolution"

After this she refused to discuss the matter further.

I hate to say this, but you asked a loaded question. By mentioning evolution in this context, you were making the same mistake as many creationists, which was to single it out as the sole scientific theory that contradicts Christianity. Furthermore, you were the one who argued that evolution and God were irreconcilable beliefs, even though this is not necessarily the case. Only the literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis conflicts with evolutionary science, whereas "God" means so many different things to different people. It's certainly possible to accept evolution while believing in God, and I think your purposes would have been better served if you explained this to her rather than setting up a false dilemma. (A good place to have started would have been with the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 1, but I won't get into it now.)

It also sounds like your mother hasn't actually given this much thought, judging from her offhand dismissal. She likely hasn't studied or read much biology, and she doesn't seem like the type who would willingly struggle with her own beliefs. I think you missed out on an opportunity to explain your point of view to her by creating a contradiction where there need not be one.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think this kind of shutting down is unique to religious issues. Introduce facts and figures into an ideological political debate, and you often get the same.

People are not, and were never supposed to be, especially rational. Trust me, I've seen the blueprints.
*tips cap*

The two are cousins, are they not?

DR

[fromdownunder]

It could just be that evolution is the issue now like the Earth centered Universe was a couple thousand years ago. But I think the resistance to evolution is not just a matter of the current times. I think resistance to the science of evolution is because it goes to the very heart of the beliefs of the Evangelical born agains.


I think the problem with fundies is more basic than that. Their problem with evolution and their utter inability to define "kind" is very simple.

Even AiG accepts speciation, calls it speciation but defines it as changes "within kinds", for which they can never get an acceptable definition. Well they have to accept speciation. It is painfully obvious that speciation, you know, actually happens. But whatever definitions they use (and this cannot be pinned down - it changes depending upon who you talk to, and what they are trying to argue), there we are out on a little shelf of our own. The human "kind".

The real problem they have is simply because any definition of a "kind" that makes any sense links us to the hominid "kind". They just cannot stomach the idea that, not only are we related to apes, we are apes.

Norm

[Skeptic Ginger]

Er... in what sense was Jesus not the looming focus of the last pope's beliefs?I don't recall the Pope every saying he had "a personal relationship with Jesus". I doubt he referred to himself as a "born again".

Christianity is one thing, the Evangelicals and Pentecostals have a particular version of Christianity that focuses almost solely on Jesus' sacrifice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought ACS and Epeos provided reasonable answers to those questions. There are relatively few theists posting in this forum, so you can't really expect more than a few responses from people who actually hold god beliefs. But just because you don't agree with their method of differentiating their beliefs from others don't mean the question was not answered.Care to find the posts? You can give us the post numbers in this thread or the other one and I'll look at them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Define "real" in this sense.

Is it "something that confirms my bias" or is it something else?

DRIn the case of that thread, "real" would be an answer to the actual question as intent of the question was fully explained. Why dismiss some god beliefs as myths while claiming an exemption from skeptical analysis of one's own god beliefs?

If I recall, all you posted were false accusations about the intent of the question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of Christianity and in particular the historical beliefs of many Christians - but not taking Genesis is literal is nothing new. Many early Christians took it as metaphor long before evolution was thought about.Evolution has little impact on the cosmology myth of Genesis. But the timing of changing one's belief the Bible was literal to the belief the 'stories' were merely metaphors is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact the beliefs changed when evidence mounted the stories couldn't possibly be true.

I find Mitochondrial Eve rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Not that this is necessarily the Eve from the bible - but it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.This is a misconception and in the last thread this came up in, I was tempted to provide a clarification of the facts but decided I didn't have the time. Most species do not evolve from single members. The exceptions are the ones we rescue from extinction with intensive effort.

Species evolve from groups. In order to have evolved from a single member, one would have to have had a single member repopulate the entire species. I realize the concepts are difficult to grasp. Maybe I will have to discuss this at length at a later time.

Mitochondrial EveThe existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each lived within a large human population at a different time. Some of their contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today. No contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve or Y-chromosomal Adam is an ancestor of only a subset of people alive today, because both of them lived much longer ago than the identical ancestors point....

...Some of these women may have died childless. Others left only male children. For the rest who became mothers with at least one daughter, one can trace a line forward in time connecting them to their daughters. As the forward lineages progress in time, more and more lineage lines become extinct, because the last female in the line dies childless or left no female children. Eventually, only one single lineage remains, which includes all mothers, and in the next generation, all people, and hence all people alive today.It is also worth noting that Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived at different times.

Population bottleneckHuman mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively.

This is one of those scientific facts which are easily misunderstood and distorted by Bible believers into thinking science supports the Biblical account in some way. The names, Adam and Eve were adopted to describe this particular aspect of genetic science. That is about the only thing here that correlates with the Bible myths.

It has been hypothesized from the data there is evidence of human species' bottlenecks over time. One hypothesis is that the smallest the human population has been down to as it evolved is estimated to have been about 1,000 members. This is not adequately supported at this time though it hasn't been ruled out.

Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2#SEC13)

I do believe the above belief you hold is only a belief some Christians hold. :) He was named Jesus for a reason.Whatever. Why don't you tell us, ACS, how do you apologize for the Biblical myth of the Jesus story?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...[long rationalizing of Biblical myths snipped]...
Shame on you, by the way, for badgering your mother. Young converts tend to be aggressive like that; I imagine she was quite embarrassed by you.As a mother who has had a few philosophical and other disagreements with my son, I can tell you it is healthy for a child to think on his or her own. Parents would be wise to encourage such flights from the nest as a natural part of the process of growing into one's individual self.

It should never be seen as offensive to disagree with your children's or parent's beliefs.

House rules, maybe, but beliefs, no.

[A Christian Sceptic]

What is relevant is the fact the beliefs changed when evidence mounted the stories couldn't possibly be true.


For the early Christians?



This is one of those scientific facts which are easily misunderstood and distorted by Bible believers into thinking science supports the Biblical account in some way. The names, Adam and Eve were adopted to describe this particular aspect of genetic science. That is about the only thing here that correlates with the Bible myths.


I already said it doesn't matter if Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the bible were the same or whether Eve in the Bible was "just a metaphor". The Truth of the Genesis account is that all humans were created by God and are related to one another. Science is just now proving that we all have 1 common ancestor.


Whatever. Why don't you tell us, ACS, how do you apologize for the Biblical myth of the Jesus story?

What myth?

I was responding to the claim that you made that Jesus came only for the Original Sin and not other sins. I know I'm not alone in believing that Jesus didn't just come because of One Sin.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nah, it's not interesting. Either all humans are related or they're not. This time, this particular religion guessed right. But that's all it was: a guess.

Anyone can guess right. When science says we're all related, now, that's not some mystic's guess. That's a truth backed by patient, painstaking, unforgivingly self-critical research.All members of all species are related. If not you'd have to have had a species evolve twice.

And even then, we would be related to all species which evolved along the Eukaryota (http://www.tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3) line of microorganisms.


The significance of Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam is grossly misunderstood. Many people in the scientific community predicted using the terms Adam and Eve was a mistake and would lead to gross misunderstanding of the actual concepts. They were right.

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the early Christians?If you have evidence the Bible myths were always considered myths, from the time they were first put on paper even, then present it.

I already said it doesn't matter if Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the bible were the same or whether Eve in the Bible was "just a metaphor". The Truth of the Genesis account is that all humans were created by God and are related to one another. Science is just now proving that we all have 1 common ancestor. Science proved that a long time ago. Only the name is Eukaryote (http://www.tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3) not Adam and Eve.

Try to understand the concept of "most recent common ancestor". When you get a better understanding of it you'll see it doesn't have anything to do with the Adam and Eve myth.

I was responding to the claim that you made that Jesus came only for the Original Sin and not other sins. I know I'm not alone in believing that Jesus didn't just come because of One Sin.

There are plenty of Christians who can buy the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor. I never said anything else. What I said was there is a subset of Christians totally invested in the 'Jesus died for me' myth. A subset of those are also invested in the belief the Adam and Eve story is literal.

All this discussion of exceptions is irrelevant to what I said.

[ceo_esq]

I don't recall the Pope every saying he had "a personal relationship with Jesus". I doubt he referred to himself as a "born again".

Christianity is one thing, the Evangelicals and Pentecostals have a particular version of Christianity that focuses almost solely on Jesus' sacrifice.

While it's true that Evangelicals and Pentecostal have a particular version of Christianity (though we should remember that there are Catholic Evangelicals and Catholic Pentecostals too), it seems to me that Jesus' sacrifice is nonetheless the central theological focus of all Catholicism. The whole point of their sacraments, for example, appears to consist in establishing and sustaining a "personal relationship with Jesus".

As far as whether Jesus was the "looming focus" of the previous pope's beliefs, consider the following quotation from his writing:

From the beginning Christ has been at the center of the faith and life of the Church, and also at the center of her teaching and theology. ... All of the Councils from the first millennium revolve around the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, including the procession of the Holy Spirit, but at their roots, all are Christological. From the time Peter confessed, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16), Christ has been at the center of the faith and life of Christians ... One must never tire of repeating this.(emphasis in original)

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you have evidence the Bible myths were always considered myths, from the time they were first put on paper even, then present it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

[Beth]

Care to find the posts? You can give us the post numbers in this thread or the other one and I'll look at them.

Other thread. Epeos had many good posts, but I felt his most concise explanation of the question in the OP was in #832
Much earlier I suggested that there might be a method to discriminate between woo beliefs, and that some might be reasonable, in spite of falling outside of "science".

Some faiths: (1) appear to do something useful, (2) recognize the supremacy of science, where science has answers,and (3) do not set themselves above independent moral criticism. Some faiths don't. It's reasonable to draw a distinction between the two.

It's true that incompatible beliefs may pass the test I suggested. It is not true that all woo ideas do. Xenu, faith healers, and police psychics all fail.

[Free Thinkr]

I had a discussion with a religious friend a few weeks back. We were both perfectly calm and polite about it, and she was quite willing to discuss the issues and didn't shy away from anything at all.

It was quite surreal to me, actually. She tried the "god defines right" line on me; by the end of it she admitted that even if she lived in the old testament times she would disobey orders direct from god concerning killing children and such; freely admitted that she picked and chose whatever parts of the bible she wanted to follow; freely admitted that this meant there was a moral standard separate from her religion, which she used to judge which parts of her religion should be followed; freely admitted that she could just as easily dispense with the bible altogether and just live by this moral code directly; freely admitted that all this was horribly inconsistent and illogical and basically made no sense at all...

And flatly told me that none of that made the slightest difference, and she still regarded herself as a firm believer in god as the ultimate source of good.

I just don't get how she can manage to do that, but she did.
Yeah, you generally get the response like in the OP, or the response you just described. I'm not sure which is more frustrating/disturbing. Humans are weird.

[wolfgirl]

One thing to be sensitive to, is that when someone is (or is not) defending their deep beliefs, they may be doing more than that. They may be defending themselves, their sense of worth, their well-being, and their relationships to others who are important to them, and have common beliefs with them.

Refusing to enter into an argument may be their way of keeping these things safe.I know that this is true for myself, personally, only on the other side of the argument. I will gladly enter into a religious argument with someone; often I even find it enjoyable. However, I cannot do so with my son. He has fairly fundamental xian beliefs, and I find that it hurts me personally to argue with him about them. I am unable to detach myself emotionally from the pain of him believing in things which I find so indefensible. Rather than being able to have a purely intellectual argument about it, I find myself wondering how I could have gone so wrong in not managing to teach him to be a more critical thinker. My husband has argued with him before, and I've had to leave the room; even though it was a perfectly friendly argument, I wanted to cry.

So in my case, my failure to defend my beliefs doesn't stem from a lack of confidence in such beliefs, but from not wanting to hurt my son or to damage our relationship or to make myself crazy by being forced to acknowledge something I prefer to try not to think about.

[ImaginalDisc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Read your Augustine.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not that this is necessarily the Eve from the bible - but it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.


I don't think you have the least inkling as to what you are talking about. It is mathematically certain that there would be one female ancestor who is the ancestor of all living humans. There is no evidence to suggest that she was the only female human in existence at the time.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Read your Augustine.

What's your point?

Augustine didn't take Genesis literally - did he?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't think you have the least inkling as to what you are talking about. It is mathematically certain that there would be one female ancestor who is the ancestor of all living humans. There is no evidence to suggest that she was the only female human in existence at the time.

So you agree with me? good.

[ImaginalDisc]

What's your point?

Augustine didn't take Genesis literally - did he?

Augustine's opinion on the matter was rather complicated, but the section I quoted is an admonishment to ignorant Christians not to mouth about matters of fact using the Bible as a scientific resource when plain facts contradict them, something you should take to heart.

You would do well not to compare the myth of the Garden of Eden to Mitiochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. It makes you look dumb. . .er.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Augustine's opinion on the matter was rather complicated, but the section I quoted is an admonishment to ignorant Christians not to mouth about matters of fact using the Bible as a scientific resource when plain facts contradict them, something you should take to heart.


Well since I've never done that I think you're apparently misunderstanding something here. In fact, in a different thread, I got in a disagreement with Skeptigirl about the fact religious documents are just that - religious documents. It's silly to expect them to be more (they may be more - but never as it's primary purpose).


You would do well not to compare the myth of the Garden of Eden to Mitiochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. It makes you look dumb. . .er.

Seems to me I've stated this (bolding mine):

I find Mitochondrial Eve rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Not that this is necessarily the Eve from the bible - but it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.


So how's that "make me look dumb" - is what I stated true or not? [hint: it's an opinion.] If not - why? This isn't some sort of Ad Hominem is it? :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Augustine's opinion on the matter was rather complicated, but the section I quoted is an admonishment to ignorant Christians not to mouth about matters of fact using the Bible as a scientific resource when plain facts contradict them, something you should take to heart.


OK - I'll answer the question for you. He did not take Genesis literally.

[Tricky]

Seems to me I've stated this (bolding mine):
Not that this is necessarily the Eve from the bible - but it is interesting though that Science is just now saying all humans are related while religion was claiming that thousands of years ago.



So how's that "make me look dumb" - is what I stated true or not? [hint: it's an opinion.] If not - why? This isn't some sort of Ad Hominem is it? :)
Not really dumb. Just unfamiliar with modern biological science, which has been saying that all humans are related since the the very foundations of the theory of evolution. Even the thought that we may have a single or very few "original humans" is not at all a new one, though it is a great deal more complex than that.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not really dumb. Just unfamiliar with modern biological science, which has been saying that all humans are related since the the very foundations of the theory of evolution. Even the thought that we may have a single or very few "original humans" is not at all a new one, though it is a great deal more complex than that.

This may come as a shock to some but I am familiar with modern biological science.

Science saying it and showing it are two seperate things. Science often says something before showing it - that's called a hypothesis.

I worded my original statement wrong [see post #50 were I clarified it] - science had been saying this at least since the theory of evolution came about - we are just now able to show that we all come from a female in africa from around 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. (I've seen various dates on this.)

Of course all sorts of religions have been saying this for alot longer. I'm not really sure what the issue is here with some posters.

Added: Just to reclarify - the only thing I've stated is 1) I find Mitochondrial Eve interesting and 2) that I also find it interesting that Science is just now saying / showing the interconnectedness / common ancestry of humans. Considering how ancient many still existing religions are the last 200 years of history is rather recent. And yes all this is simply my opinion that I find it all interesting. :) On a somewhat related note - in a Christopher Hitchens speech I recently watched he made the point that he recommended everyone getting a DNA test because he apparently feels that knowing how connected we all are might somehow make us appreciate each other more. Why does he think it would make us appreciate each other more - because we all have common ancestry. This is just one of the points Genesis and other creation myths have already made.

[ceo_esq]

What's your point?

Augustine didn't take Genesis literally - did he?

Augustine did not take all of Genesis literally. More important than whether he believed these things literally, though, was his basic attitude toward how biblical texts should be interpreted. He believed that Scripture was not really intended as a way of imparting knowledge about things that we are capable of learning about solely through reason and experience. Thus, while Augustine thought that the earth was only a few thousand years old (lacking a clear reason to depart from a literal biblical interpretation on this point), we may fairly safely presume that if he had lived long enough to encounter solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old, he would have accepted it without any problem. That notion generally informed Christian biblical exegesis for most of the religion's history, but Fundamentalism - a modern phenomenon - departed from it.

There's a big difference between literal interpretation as a default position (subject to future contradiction) and literal interpretation as an ideology or "ism". That's one of the things separating, say, a 10th-century Christian from a 21st-century YEC. They both might adopt a literal interpretation of the biblical story of Creation, but only the latter should really be called a Creationist or a biblical literalist. For this reason, it's misleading to characterize Fundamentalists as throwbacks (e.g, in our example, the YEC isn't a throwback to the 10th-century Christian; he represents a completely different phenomenon).

If the skeptical/critical-thought movement could be said (without too much irony) to have a patron saint, Augustine isn't a bad candidate for the honor. "We should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

[Tricky]

This may come as a shock to some but I am familiar with modern biological science.
My apologies.

Science saying it and showing it are two seperate things. Science often says something before showing it - that's called a hypothesis.
The case that all humans are related, and indeed all life on earth is related, has long passed the "hypothesis" barrier. It is a well-supported theory. But relationships are complex, not just parents-to-children.

I worded my original statement wrong [see post #50 were I clarified it] - science had been saying this at least since the theory of evolution came about - we are just now able to show that we all come from a female in africa from around 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. (I've seen various dates on this.)
I suspect that this will be hotly debated for quite some time to come. As I say, the relationships are not simple. Speciation often involves a great deal of "back-breeding" where the imperfectly-defined "new species" continues to breed with the old species, leading to complex family relationships. It is highly unlikely that humans are all decended from a single breeding pair, as is suggested by Genesis.

So it seems that those who say "the bible got it right" like to pick and choose the parts that they bring forth as evidence.


Of course all sorts of religions have been saying this for a lot longer. I'm not really sure what the issue is here with some posters.
The devil is in the details. Gross generalizations like this rarely paint an accurate picture. Quite a number of religions do not identify an "original pair". For example, in Egyptian mythology, lots of people were formed by the tears from the eye of Ra (http://library.thinkquest.org/29064/main.html).

[biomorph]

This may come as a shock to some but I am familiar with modern biological science.

Good to hear it.



Science saying it and showing it are two seperate things. Science often says something before showing it - that's called a hypothesis.

so does religion, except of course the showing of it gets a little thin.............unlike science...


I worded my original statement wrong [see post #50 were I clarified it] - science had been saying this at least since the theory of evolution came about - we are just now able to show that we all come from a female in africa from around 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. (I've seen various dates on this.)


And she came from?


Of course all sorts of religions have been saying this for alot longer. I'm not really sure what the issue is here with some posters.

And religion of course in reality got all the dates wrong, and thought there were no ancestors beyond a certain point, wrong again....... I think you might find that is the issue somewhat...


Added: Just to reclarify - the only thing I've stated is 1) I find Mitochondrial interesting and 2) that I also find it interesting that Science is just now saying / showing the interconnectedness / common ancestry of humans. Considering how ancient many still existing religions are the last 200 years of history is rather recent. And yes all this is simply my opinion that I find it all interesting. :)

I can see your point here, however even though you state rightly that science has done the showing bit (contrary to your previous point), where is religion's "showing" part of the deal....nowhere.....and the "interconnectedness" in religion seperates humans from animals in some/most religions, contrary to the evidence..........got that wrong did they not?

[A Christian Sceptic]

And she came from?


Well - to be technical and if you go back far enough it leads to the beginning which was a "primordial condition of enormous density and temperature". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Which came from?



And religion of course in reality got all the dates wrong, and thought there were no ancestors beyond a certain point, wrong again....... I think you might find that is the issue somewhat...

Not sure why it should be. It's truth is still rather usefull to me. :)

[Darth Rotor]

Why dismiss some god beliefs as myths while claiming an exemption from skeptical analysis of one's own god beliefs?
.
That wasn't the question, but thanks for clearing that up.

DR

[A Christian Sceptic]

My apologies.


It was my fault due to my bad wording. Although - it might not really be my fault as I have a Conspiracy Theory that revolves around the fact that no matter how much I proofread and re-edit my post it still seems to get worded wrong and have odd spellings. ;)

[biomorph]

Well - to be technical and if you go back far enough it leads to the beginning which was a "primordial condition of enormous density and temperature". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Which came from?

True. Though that is extenuating the issue slightly beyond what i was considering......


Not sure why it should be. It's truth is still rather usefull to me. :)

Ah, well thats the difference between you and me perhaps, in what we personally consider truth to be maybe....:)

[A Christian Sceptic]

True. Though that is extenuating the issue slightly beyond what i was considering......


haha.


Ah, well thats the difference between you and me perhaps, in what we personally consider truth to be maybe....:)

true enough.

[Silentknight]

I didn't want this to get derailed into another creation vs. evolution debate, but I did want to point out the obvious: that the creation myth in Genesis was not written with scientific accuracy or even inclusiveness in mind. The theme of tribalism is very prevalent in ancient Hebrew writings, as with all ancient cultures, and every culture believed itself to be descended from the first humans on Earth. In any given creation myth, the people who wrote it usually claim that they lived on and therefore own their homeland from the beginning of time, and will name their tribe's founders as the ancestors of all mankind. Therefore the Genesis story is more of an example of ethnocentrism than anything else. "We were the first humans on Earth, our tribe was the first, our deity is the one true deity, and only we know how it all happened."

Keep in mind I'm not arguing against a more liberal interpretation that is more consistent with scientific evidence. Not at all. I'm just saying that we shouldn't give the tribals who wrote it undue credit for guessing the right answer.

[six7s]

Therefore the Genesis story is more of an example of ethnocentrism than anything else. "We were the first humans on Earth, our tribe was the first, our deity is the one true deity, and only we know how it all happened."

You mean we can't believe all that documentary evidence?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1760247a7bf3ab9c60.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10592)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1760247a7bf5ed28cc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10593)

[biomorph]

Gosh, six7's, you are well travelled, you kept that quiet.;)