Evangelical Protestants and the GOP

[Kidlicious]

It's interesting that the materialist types think of creationism as christianity even though those are just some christians.

[kentonio]

Children rebel against authority just as much as anybody else.

True, but children are also great at questioning things. Children will accept almost anything as long as they find an explanation that seems reasonable to them.

How? Are you talking about flaws in human anatomy, like the blind spot in the eye? Even that's not really "irreducible complexity," though...wait, are you talking about the argument that God must necessarily be even more complex than His creation, and so demands a creator Himself? That's a fine answer to the flawed argument from nature--a sort of debater's judo, using their own argument against them--but it depends on the assumption that our deductions about a thing are applicable to its maker.

Absolutely, but the alternative is assuming that a maker must have its own set of rules that are completely outside our own rules of understanding, and if thats the case then you can't also use a creator as an explanation for our own lack of understanding about creation. Well I suppose you could, but that really does become a bit of a lazy answer.

It's interesting that the materialist types think of creationism as christianity even though those are just some christians.

I don't really get what you mean here. Some christians allow for evolution to be part of their creator theory and some just fall back on creationism. I don't think anyone would call all christians creationists in the regular sense of the term. You all believe in a form of creation that includes supernatural influence at some point though surely, otherwise you wouldn't be religious.

[kentonio]

So you think like them?

No, because irreducable complexity is proved to be false in terms of evolution. There is always another step further down that can be found if you look hard enough.

[Kidlicious]

I mean both the creationinsts and the materialists think god is what we expect him to be. Creationists are materialists in a way.

[Kidlicious]

No, because irreducable complexity is proved to be false in terms of evolution. There is always another step further down that can be found if you look hard enough.

I have no idea if you are right or not, as I don't find the subject interesting or important. But I meant that you both claim that god either exists or doesn't exist based on the compelexity or simplicity of the universe.

[kentonio]

I mean both the creationinsts and the materialists think god is what we expect him to be. Creationists are materialists in a way.

It's pretty human to look for some kind of understanding that fits within the framework of our world and our experiences. You are quite unusual in that you seem ok with the concept of a creator figure who you don't feel any need to understand in human terms.

I have no idea if you are right or not, as I don't find the subject interesting or important. But I meant that you both claim that god either exists or doesn't exist based on the compelexity or simplicity of the universe.

To be fair I don't think creationists ever place gods existance as depending on it, they just use the argument to try and counter evolution while ignoring the fact that its also a very strong argument against god.

[Kidlicious]

It's pretty human to look for some kind of understanding that fits within the framework of our world and our experiences. You are quite unusual in that you seem ok with the concept of a creator figure who you don't feel any need to understand in human terms.

What does it matter if it's human or not? You're reasoning isn't logical, yet you keep telling us that ours isn't logical.

[Elok]

True, but children are also great at questioning things. Children will accept almost anything as long as they find an explanation that seems reasonable to them.

If God is readily apparent, it's not a matter of explanation, but of obedience, which demands ascetic discipline. We're to be like little children in our openness and acceptance. They're wanting in certain other respects. Like delayed gratification, for example.

Absolutely, but the alternative is assuming that a maker must have its own set of rules that are completely outside our own rules of understanding, and if thats the case then you can't also use a creator as an explanation for our own lack of understanding about creation. Well I suppose you could, but that really does become a bit of a lazy answer.

What do you mean by using the creator as an explanation for our lack of understanding? Are you talking about creationism? I'm fine with the methodological materialism of science. But that doesn't seem to be what you mean.

[kentonio]

What does it matter if it's human or not? You're reasoning isn't logical, yet you keep telling us that ours isn't logical.

Actually its nothing but logical. Religious beliefs generally require you to accept something that exists outside the logical structure of the world, god is not a logical entity which is why it comes under the heading of supernatural. All your 'logic' requires you to already accept a raft of supernatural concepts, because none of it makes sense alone. A virgin giving birth to a messaih is not a logical thing unless you already believe in the existence of god and his power to step outside the rules of science.

[kentonio]

If God is readily apparent, it's not a matter of explanation, but of obedience, which demands ascetic discipline. We're to be like little children in our openness and acceptance. They're wanting in certain other respects. Like delayed gratification, for example.

Children change their opinions very quickly though and tend away from dogma once they have found it to be wanting. You tell a child to just shut up and accept something and whats the most normal response? "BUT WHY!?!?!?!?!".

What do you mean by using the creator as an explanation for our lack of understanding? Are you talking about creationism? I'm fine with the methodological materialism of science. But that doesn't seem to be what you mean.

I mean that yes we draw conclusions about the rules that bind a creator of something from the things that they create, in this case the universe. If we step beyond that and assume that the creator is able to work within a set of rules outside our understanding then it stops being anything worth talking about because its basically handing over a blank cheque.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but children are also great at questioning things. Children will accept almost anything as long as they find an explanation that seems reasonable to them.

Maybe you undermine you position on reasonableness when you realize children have a far greater unquestioning faith in God than teens or adults do.

[Elok]

Children change their opinions very quickly though and tend away from dogma once they have found it to be wanting. You tell a child to just shut up and accept something and whats the most normal response? "BUT WHY!?!?!?!?!".

Yes, but this isn't just a matter of belief, but of practice. I'm thinking of the "terrible twos" here. But admittedly, I don't have experience raising children. Yet. He's only seven weeks old now, all I really know is that he pukes a lot and can sense when we're doing something productive or enjoyable while he sleeps.

I mean that yes we draw conclusions about the rules that bind a creator of something from the things that they create, in this case the universe. If we step beyond that and assume that the creator is able to work within a set of rules outside our understanding then it stops being anything worth talking about because its basically handing over a blank cheque.

Suppose you're an alien with a completely different physiology, psychology and environment from ours, trying to deduce truths about humanity by looking at some stuff we made. You might come to some correct conclusions, broadly speaking, and some very incorrect ones. You look at a chair--but your species isn't bipedal and, for one reason or another, doesn't need to rest that way (maybe you live on a gas giant planet and float around all the time). So you come up with some alternative explanation which makes great sense to your species and absolutely none for humans. Barring an actual human showing up and letting you poke at him to figure out how he works (or outright telling you about himself), there's really not much you can do.

EDIT: You are correct that there's not much point talking about God's nature--at least, not based on scientific knowledge. It can only be known, as in the example, by revelation. I don't view this as laziness, natch, but as an unfortunate reflection of the way things are.

[kentonio]

Maybe you undermine you position on reasonableness when you realize children have a far greater unquestioning faith in God than teens or adults do.

My point was rather that childrens beliefs are not unquestioning. They can be the most rigid adherents to a belief, but usually only until they come up against something that directly contradicts that belief. They can then change their entire worldview with a speed that most of us would find completely dizzying.

Yes, but this isn't just a matter of belief, but of practice. I'm thinking of the "terrible twos" here. But admittedly, I don't have experience raising children. Yet. He's only seven weeks old now, all I really know is that he pukes a lot and can sense when we're doing something productive or enjoyable while he sleeps.

I'm jealous, I've had kids around a lot but I don't have any of my own yet. Hope you're cherishing every second.

Suppose you're an alien with a completely different physiology, psychology and environment from ours, trying to deduce truths about humanity by looking at some stuff we made. You might come to some correct conclusions, broadly speaking, and some very incorrect ones. You look at a chair--but your species isn't bipedal and, for one reason or another, doesn't need to rest that way (maybe you live on a gas giant planet and float around all the time). So you come up with some alternative explanation which makes great sense to your species and absolutely none for humans. Barring an actual human showing up and letting you poke at him to figure out how he works (or outright telling you about himself), there's really not much you can do.

What happened to man being made in gods image? I've heard that line of reasoning before, and it just doesnt feel like it fits here. On one hand man and god are supposed to be very close, but on the other god is supposed to be completely outside of humanities understanding. How does that work?

EDIT: You are correct that there's not much point talking about God's nature--at least, not based on scientific knowledge. It can only be known, as in the example, by revelation. I don't view this as laziness, natch, but as an unfortunate reflection of the way things are.

I just want some reason to believe the things I believe in. If gods last revelation was 2000 years ago, then it hardly seems surprising that so many of us roll to disbelieve.

[Jon Miller]

Man is a creator just like God.

Many Christians believe that God continues to reveal himself to others. Not in the 'Christ came and lived with us sense' but in inspiration, dreams, and so on.

Every Christian tradition places some respect on tradition, for this reason.

I think Polkinghorne had a good book about it? (have you read anything by him?)

JM

[kentonio]

No I haven't, I'll go take a look.