Interesting serious starting on PT

[phank]

A former creationist is attempting to explain the mindset that allows creationists to rationalize their beliefs, and it looks like it might be interesting:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014...ng-c.html#more

[Creationists]understand the theory of evolution, along with mainstream geology and a variety of other disciplines, as a philosophical construct created for the express purpose of explaining life on Earth apart from divine intervention. Thus, they approach the concept of evolution from a defensive position; they believe it represents an attack on all religious faith.

This defensive posture is reflected in nearly all creationist literature, even in the less overt varieties such as intelligent-design creationism. It dictates responses. When creationists see a particular argument or explanation about evolution, their initial reaction is to ask, “How does this attack the truth of God as Creator? What philosophical presuppositions are dictating beliefs here? How can I challenge those underlying assumptions and thus demonstrate the truth?” Recognizing this basis for creationist arguments is a helpful tool for understanding why such otherwise baffling arguments are proposed.

Some of this might sound a bit familiar...

[Teallaura]

Um, did you mean 'series' by any chance?

[phank]

Um, did you mean 'series' by any chance?

Yes, thank you.

[klaus54]

I'm a Christian and for the life of me don't understand the all too prevalent of anti-science knee jerk reaction to anything supporting deep time and biological evolution. Of course this is aided and abetted by the various despicable "Creation Ministries". Untrained individuals have little choice but to be indoctrinated by fear from these charlatans.

As long as sneering atheist cynics don't use such Luddite attitudes as strawmen for all religious belief, I am on the side of defending the truth we can plainly see in nature against the fear emotion of those who place non-salvific dogma on a similar plane with the basics of doctrine - "Mere Christianity" and all that jazz.

That being said, I'm afeared the PT discussion will be more of the boring same-old same-old.

Phank, if something strikes your fancy, please bring it here to this thread for us to give it a once-over.

K54

[Teallaura]

Yes, thank you.

No prob - if you pm the fora mod he can fix the main title for you.

[Jedidiah]

I'm a Christian and for the life of me don't understand the all too prevalent of anti-science knee jerk reaction to anything supporting deep time and biological evolution. Of course this is aided and abetted by the various despicable "Creation Ministries". Untrained individuals have little choice but to be indoctrinated by fear from these charlatans.

I too am a Christian. I too am sad to see the anti intellectual approach of too many Christians to science and rational thinking in general.

[Jorge]

I too am a Christian. I too am sad to see the anti intellectual approach of too many Christians to science and rational thinking in general.

Not nearly as sad as Christians like myself are about folk like you. The reasons are many but they basically center on the fact that your spiritual blindness makes you a de facto ally of the very people that would destroy that which you profess to believe. For as long as I've been at this, I still shake my head in bewilderment.

I am reminded at times like this that false doctrine, vain worldly philosophies and other causes shall lead many into paths such as what you people are upon. I take no credit for having escaped the errors that you people follow as hapless sheep - but for the grace of God that too would be me.

As for this "serious series" at Panda's Thumb, one can only tremble at the level of stupidity that will be sputtering out of that dung heap.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Not nearly as sad as Christians like myself are about folk like you. The reasons are many but they basically center on the fact that your spiritual blindness makes you a de facto ally of the very people that would destroy that which you profess to believe. For as long as I've been at this, I still shake my head in bewilderment.

I am reminded at times like this that false doctrine, vain worldly philosophies and other causes shall lead many into paths such as what you people are upon. I take no credit for having escaped the errors that you people follow as hapless sheep - but for the grace of God that too would be me.

As for this "serious series" at Panda's Thumb, one can only tremble at the level of stupidity that will be sputtering out of that dung heap.

Jorge

Jorge,

You have yet to give an unambiguous literal reading of Ge 1:2-3, let alone the entire first creation story.

Kinda hypocritical then to not only ignore the (literally!) mountains of evidence for deep time, but to imply apostasy toward anyone who has an interpretation (literal or otherwise) different to yours.

Innit?

K54

P.S. Both Biblical scholarship and gobs of consilient evidence are against you. When are you going to admit you're on the wrong side of nearly everything?

[phank]

Phank, if something strikes your fancy, please bring it here to this thread for us to give it a once-over.

K54

Thank you for the polite invitation. As it happens, I have yet another interesting series, this one a philosophical discourse on Metaphysical Naturalism. The initial installment is here:

http://civitashumana.wordpress.com/2...al-naturalism/

And here's an excerpt from that first installment (the second installment is also up)

Philosophers, such as Jack Ritchie in Understanding Naturalism and Richard Carrier in Sense And Goodness Without God, have developed and defended a sophisticated metaphysical view called metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism seeks to explain every feature of our reality through only natural entities and causes, without the need of god(s) or the supernatural in any part of one’s worldview and life philosophy. In other words, a “big picture” explanation of reality can be reached without any appeal to religion, making religions such as Christianity unnecessary and extraneous to answering the big questions in life. As professional philosopher Graham Oppy explains in The Best Argument Against God, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then theism is consequently false.

As such, understanding metaphysics and being able to defend metaphysical naturalism is the best way to defend irreligion and atheism against the attacks of religious apologetics. Over the next series of posts I will work to lay out a description of what the “big picture” looks like under the metaphysical naturalist worldview.

Looks pretty interesting so far. Check it out.

[Jedidiah]

Not nearly as sad as Christians like myself are about folk like you. The reasons are many but they basically center on the fact that your spiritual blindness makes you a de facto ally of the very people that would destroy that which you profess to believe. For as long as I've been at this, I still shake my head in bewilderment.
Jorge

As I said:

I do not know that I would use those terms for him either, but he never offended me. I could and would disagree but not be offended.

[Jorge]

As I said: "I do not know that I would use those terms for him either, but he never offended me. I could and would disagree but not be offended."

At this stage in life/level of maturity, I am well past the petty reaction of being "offended" - I am assuming that you are there also. So let's set that aside. This is about the extremely serious matter of unwittingly/unknowingly serving as an ally of the very thing that wishes to destroy (y)our faith. Do think about that, Jedidiah.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Thank you for the polite invitation. As it happens, I have yet another interesting series, this one a philosophical discourse on Metaphysical Naturalism. The initial installment is here:

http://civitashumana.wordpress.com/2...al-naturalism/

And here's an excerpt from that first installment (the second installment is also up)

Looks pretty interesting so far. Check it out.

"Philosophers, such as Jack Ritchie in Understanding Naturalism and Richard Carrier in Sense And Goodness Without God, have developed and defended a sophisticated metaphysical view called metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism seeks to explain every feature of our reality through only natural entities and causes, without the need of god(s) or the supernatural in any part of one’s worldview and life philosophy. In other words, a “big picture” explanation of reality can be reached without any appeal to religion, making religions such as Christianity unnecessary and extraneous to answering the big questions in life. As professional philosopher Graham Oppy explains in The Best Argument Against God, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then theism is consequently false.

As such, understanding metaphysics and being able to defend metaphysical naturalism is the best way to defend irreligion and atheism against the attacks of religious apologetics. Over the next series of posts I will work to lay out a description of what the “big picture” looks like under the metaphysical naturalist worldview."

As I read the above, I recalled a section of one of my favorite literary works: the characters inside of Plato's cave, as they observed the shadowy figures and devised all sorts of speculations about what they were seeing, what they meant and so on. Plato hit the nail squarely on the head with that allegory - a masterful work of genius! Those cave-dwelling characters, in case you missed it, represent the Materialists engaged in their one-dimensional view of reality.

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

A former creationist is attempting to explain the mindset that allows creationists to rationalize their beliefs, and it looks like it might be interesting:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014...ng-c.html#more



Some of this might sound a bit familiar...

This is indicative of the problem with the dysfunctional nature of ancient religious world views. The strong emotional investment in ancient theologies takes priority over the realities of the real world around that we can objectively and logically understand through science. Jews manage with heavy pragmatism and Midrash. Christians reject or selectively parse our physical reality as understood conditionally through the window of their limited worldview.

[OingoBoingo]

This is indicative of the problem with the dysfunctional nature of ancient religious world views. The strong emotional investment in ancient theologies takes priority over the realities of the real world around that we can objectively and logically understand through science. Jews manage with heavy pragmatism and Midrash. Christians reject or selectively parse our physical reality as understood conditionally through the window of their limited worldview.

And Baha'i's in their limited worldview reject the view that man is an animal. I'm sure a lot of people could point out that its because of Baha'i's "strong emotional investments in ancient theologies" that prevent women from being eligible members of the Universal House of Justice, and that sees homosexuality as non-normative and in need of curing.

[Jorge]

This is indicative of the problem with the dysfunctional nature of ancient religious world views. The strong emotional investment in ancient theologies takes priority over the realities of the real world around that we can objectively and logically understand through science. Jews manage with heavy pragmatism and Midrash. Christians reject or selectively parse our physical reality as understood conditionally through the window of their limited worldview.

Hiya, Dragon ... what's it like inside that cave?

Jorge