Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

[Japher]

DONT GET IT TWISTED

is not going to catch on

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
a lot of fundamentalists I know know the Bible better then a lot of theologians (because the theologians spend their time thinking their own ideas, instead of looking to what the Bible says)

You probably don't know good theologians, then.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you guys (And particularly Spiffor, who has probably never known a fundamentalist) don't know a thing you are talking about, but are just badmouthing religious fundamentalists

often times they are very intellectual, knowing a lot about science/engineering/medicine/etc, just like other people

Studies do not support your assertion, Jon.

The more education a person receive, the less likely that he will become a fundamentalist. IOW, the percentage of fundamentalists decreases as the level of education increases. At the doctoral level there are very few fundamentalists. This is particuarly so wrt to the science fields.

A concrete example is Creatonists (including ID'ers). There is 0 (well known) Creationists among biologists, esp. the ones with doctorals. Michael Behe has a Ph.D. but he's a biochemist, so is Duane Gish. But they stick out like a sore thumb. Philip Johnson is a lawyer Henry Morris is a hydraulic engineer.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Japher



There is no such thing as a rational approach to religion. One cannot say Intellect and Religion are in anyway connected and ever hope to win that argument, because of the nature of "belief".

Here you assume that God and his creation are separate . What if they are the same , and the the ultimate purpose of religion is to make everyone realise and experience the fact that they are a God ( as it is with Hinduism ) ? What if everyone is held to be a God , only not having realised it ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Man evolved from a mollusc? News to biology...

Can you understand an analogy ? The statements made are a generalisation , and are not to be taken to mean that man evolved from a mollusc . "Mollusc" refers to the chain man evolved from , tracing it back to the first instance of life . Instead of holding them to be all inferior to man , he holds them as all potential gods , or expressions of divinity .

Hindu tradition is not dogmatic , and that is why everyone understands the intent of the author and does not obsess about the wording , unlike other traditions , where probably a bunch of fanatics would have tried to "prove" that man evolved from a mollusc .

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by The diplomat


Creationists believe that God created all things in the universe. Therefore, all life, whether "lower" or "higher" is a work of God regardless of whether evolution occured or not. So, there is no need to introduce evolution in order to make Creation something positive. The Creation story in the Bible is already positive: God created the universe and all things in it, He created good things like plants and animals, and He created something really special called Man because we have free will and reason.

But are organisms lower in the evolutionary chain held to have the same potential for divinity as man ? Isn't man created in God's image , and therefore "superior" to all others and closer to God ? Aren't animals supposed to be soulless ( in the Christian tradition ) , and only humans are held to have a soul ? Basically , doesn't it degrade all other creation in favour of man , and then try to reject any link between the "lower" creation and man , instead of elevation the lower creation to level of an unrealised man or God ?

[Spiffor]

UR:

Well, Jon brings up the valid point that not all fundamentalists are borne out of ignorance. When people think about their beliefs, some of these people will find in their heart very compelling reasons to become fundamentalists. Just like some other people will find very compelling reasons to become religiously liberals. Just like some people will find very compelling reasons to change denomination or to even convert.

However, as far as numbers as concerned, like you said, the immense majority of fundies are among the uneducated. These kind of anti-intellectual people -i.e the overwhelming majority of the fundies in the US- are those who are making the evolution vs creation debate a reality in the US. Despite that fact that fundamentalism can occasionally be a point of view of advanced biblical scholars, it is most often the point of view of uncritical followers.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You probably don't know good theologians, then.



Studies do not support your assertion, Jon.

The more education a person receive, the less likely that he will become a fundamentalist. IOW, the percentage of fundamentalists decreases as the level of education increases. At the doctoral level there are very few fundamentalists. This is particuarly so wrt to the science fields.

A concrete example is Creatonists (including ID'ers). There is 0 (well known) Creationists among biologists, esp. the ones with doctorals. Michael Behe has a Ph.D. but he's a biochemist, so is Duane Gish. But they stick out like a sore thumb. Philip Johnson is a lawyer Henry Morris is a hydraulic engineer.

ok, how about this

I know lots of fundamentalists.. who are very well educated

some are even creationists

my experience suggests that there is no correlation

in fact, I would claim that the SDA church is fundamentalist (although not all members are, of course), and it has a very high rate (at least in the US) of college educated, intellectual type members

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

another story

the area I come from has a low rate of education (people cried at their kids 8th grade graduation, pleased that their kids had gone so far) and was fairly anti-intellectual (only a me and one other person (That I know of) from my highschool senior class graduated 4 years after we entered college)

most of my classmates were 'fundamentalists' and creationists in middle school, when they met a science teacher and a humanities teacher that challenged their beliefs (with evolution, with philosophy, and with reason/logic/history) most of them quit being fundamentalists, and many quit being Christian

but I personally would not call them fundamentalists in the first place.. they were simply uneducated

fundamentalism is a strong beleif, and is usually associated with intense study of what you beleive

I would not call a true fundamentalist nonintellectual

Jon Miller

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
another story

the area I come from has a low rate of education (people cried at their kids 8th grade graduation, pleased that their kids had gone so far) and was fairly anti-intellectual (only a me and one other person (That I know of) from my highschool senior class graduated 4 years after we entered college)

most of my classmates were 'fundamentalists' and creationists in middle school, when they met a science teacher and a humanities teacher that challenged their beliefs (with evolution, with philosophy, and with reason/logic/history) most of them quit being fundamentalists, and many quit being Christian

but I personally would not call them fundamentalists in the first place.. they were simply uneducated

fundamentalism is a strong beleif, and is usually associated with intense study of what you beleive

I would not call a true fundamentalist nonintellectual

Jon Miller

Ohhh ahhh yes I am so sexy, I've got my own definitions of fundamentalism.. you may touch me now

Educate yourself on fundamentalism: http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict1&Query=fundamentalism&Strategy=*&Database=*&sourceid=Mozilla-search

You may touch ME after reading! Ohh ahhhh yesss!

[Jon Miller]

ok, as definied in my theology class it was 100% beleif in something

like many Christians are fundamentalist theists

now fundamentalists in the sense that they are commonly refered to in the US are fundamentalist Bible beleivers, that is that they believe in the Bible 100%

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

and apparently it, by some definitions, was founded in the US

so of course it is strongest here

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.


JM

[germanos]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
fundamentalism is a strong beleif, and is usually associated with intense study of what you beleive

I would not call a true fundamentalist nonintellectual

Jon Miller

I would: If you don't want to think (e.g. belief), then you're not being very intellectual

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but I personally would not call them fundamentalists in the first place.. they were simply uneducated

Jon Miller

That is another matter...

[The diplomat]

Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by aneeshm
But are organisms lower in the evolutionary chain held to have the same potential for divinity as man ? Isn't man created in God's image , and therefore "superior" to all others and closer to God ? Aren't animals supposed to be soulless ( in the Christian tradition ) , and only humans are held to have a soul ? Basically , doesn't it degrade all other creation in favour of man , and then try to reject any link between the "lower" creation and man , instead of elevation the lower creation to level of an unrealised man or God ?

Of course, humans are "superior" to animals. We have reason and intellect which animals lack. Isn't it obvious that animals are "inferior" to humans? Surely, you don't think that a snail or a cat has the "same potential for divinity" as a human being?

No, it does not degrade creation. Animals are a beautiful part of creation. They fulfill very important functions. The idea of "elevating the lower creation to level of an unrealised man or God" is preposterous! You're saying that a snail or a spider could become a man or a god? That's ridiculous! How could an animal become a god when it lacks an intellect or a moral conscious?

[Atahualpa]

So you are implying humans always had a moral conscious and intellect? Even when we were undistinguishable with an ape.
I don't know what triggered it, but we have evolved faster than any other species, that however doesn't mean it's only possible for us. Why should it? There are lots of signs of intellect in the animal world. Cats or Dogs that know how to open a door, or how they show you that they want to leave the house by coming to you, meowing and then running to the door so that you open it for them.
Dogs can even understand what we say or they can learn to interpret our commands.
We also know about how clever Dolphines are...

Intellect and moral conscious can be learned somehow. It was possible for us, it is possible for others as well.

[Mr. Harley]

I think what is happening here is that there is the routine confusion between "fundamentalist" and "Religious Rght". Spiffor very nicely describes those on the Religious Right, which includes a very high per centage of Southern Baptists. Since the Southern Theological Seminary is right here in Louisville, and one of my coworkers graduated from there - believe me folks, Spiffor hit the "Religious Right" definition very nicely (BTW Spiffor are you originally from the USA?). The Religious Right can also include some extremist Catholics, like my father, Evangelical Christians, and some Methodists.

Jon Miller is talking about Religious Fundamentalism. I have had many friends who are Religious Fundamentlists, but none who were members of the Religious Right. Jon is, from his posts, a devout Religious Fundamentalist (redundant terminology?), which is why while I may disagree with him at times, I've noticed that in general he is one of the more polite people here. Of course a Religious Fundamentalist complaining about his lack of success with the ladies...