What is the real probem (with creationists)?

[lunertic]

Having read a closed thread on science vs. creationism this may be inappropriate for my first post and will understand if it is pulled.

It seems to me that one point was overlooked in favor of the moral issue between viewpoints. Creationists of all genres won't give up any ground because to do so in their minds would set the stage for giving up on eternal life rather than the question being so much of a moral issue. This is something most human beings cannot accept or conceive of: non-existence.

[hhEb09'1]

non-existence

I don't know what you're talking about

Welcome to BAUT!

[Neverfly]

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that...

But also not so much standard as much as instilled. There are many ways to "live on" after death. Carl Sagan "lives on..."
And welcome to BAUT too.
Don't eat my doughnuts.

Leave my Dr Pepper alone...

And there should be no problems

[Noclevername]

Death is death, the end of life. That's why it's called Death.

[Van Rijn]

Quite a few people who profess a belief in an afterlife seem to have no difficulty with having science taught in the classroom, so I doubt this is a necessary conflict in beliefs.

[TheOncomingStorm]

I think the a lot people do not like the idea that they are not the center of the universe or we are not the reason the universe exists.

[astromark]

I do not suppose to tell what others might think. Until I ask them I do not know. I do know my own thoughts well enough to be an authority on them.
I note that others have begun with what others might think. That is a mistake... Well no, it only might be... The finality of death is distasteful but unavoidable for me. I hardly need to say that I have no religious belief. I do not except the existence of the paranormal. To live on after ones death is only made possible by the living remembering my existence after my death. For me this is a true statement of facts. It is as I see it. I would not sagest this is the only truth. I can see little harm in having misplaced beliefs. For some it is very important that they live by and practice their belief structure as handed down to them. It gives them the society structure they are used to. I would fight for those peoples right to do just that. As wrong as I think they are, I do not uphold the view that they are wrong.
This is an astronomy forum and, as such we should be tolerant of other opinions and belief structures. Not at the cost of the facts however.
If we say that this universe is over 13.7 billion years old then that is a truth that no religious fundamentalist has the right to refute. Evidence can and has been presented to support this notion. Fundamentalist extremism is the enemy not ignorance. With education we can fight ignorance. Fundamentalists extremists are not so easy to persuade. Having a mind that is willing to receive new and better information is not the realm of the young alone. Learning not to judge but to reason.

[Whirlpool]

Having read a closed thread on science vs. creationism this may be inappropriate for my first post and will understand if it is pulled.

It seems to me that one point was overlooked in favor of the moral issue between viewpoints. Creationists of all genres won't give up any ground because to do so in their minds would set the stage for giving up on eternal life rather than the question being so much of a moral issue. This is something most human beings cannot accept or conceive of: non-existence.

I think because it's what they hope for.

I also observed and this is not only to creationists but it's commonly the interest of the many is -- about life:

And these are the questions commonly asked :

how to prolong life?
how to stay young ?
how to preserve youth ?
how to have eternal life?
how to stay strong ?

Well , it all asks the same thing only have different versions and that is
'How to stay alive?"

[antoniseb]

Creationists of all genres won't give up any ground because to do so in their minds would set the stage for giving up on eternal life rather than the question being so much of a moral issue.

The reason that a topic like this is problematic is that you have made a statement that dismisses faith as a selfish activity, when many religious people see themselves as less selfish than average. Your statement also reduces a very complex set of feelings and thoughts that these people have to a simple issue. While worded relatively gently, it still could potentially be the start of a pointless heated debate.

I will close the thread if it turns into that.

[Romanus]

Though few will admit it, I don't think the real issue is immortality. I think it's something that comes to the surface when some people see a chimp, either at the zoo or on TV, doing something "gross" or "unhuman", creating a revulsion at the thought that beings as noble as we are can't possibly be related to uncouth creatures. If only chance and evolution is separating you from swinging naked through trees, our dominance of the planet--indeed, our very culture--looks absurd at best.

[Michael Noonan]

Mostly we just don't know. That is something that is not acceptable to people who believe we should know. For one belief is stability and allows people to be noble.

For me I try to keep an open mind. There are all sorts of things people want explanations for such as the ghost in the castle that frightened Princess Mary. So we try to control our existence by belief and discover it through experiment. Sometimes these two ideas clash and people argue.

If you put all your trust in people then someday (and it usually doesn't take long) then you are going to get hurt. Having said that sometimes people with even the best of intentions cause pain. Life is about a certain measure of stability and growth through exploration.

Since we are all different then it takes all those different means to ensure people find that niche where they feel most safe or adventurous. That is it. Each system exists and must exist due to an expressed need. To argue is pointless and a waste of time but we still argue.

Have you ever listened to two people prepared to listen to each other with two very different views. If they listen they may understand why the other person thinks that way. At best if they listen they might learn that the other person does not think the way they do.

[Gillianren]

After all, kids, the Pope--who most assuredly believes in an afterlife!--also accepts the evidence for evolution. (At least, we're pretty sure this one does; the last one certainly did.) I'm not yet sure what I believe about an afterlife, but I sometimes believe in one, and I certainly accept the evidence for evolution. A lot of theists do. It's just a handful of loud ones and a larger number of ones who just don't know any better who don't.

[korjik]

I think there are two sources of creationism.

First is a response to percieved attacks on the basis of faith from science. The attacks dont have to be real, tho I think some are, but the perception that has grown that science is trying to disprove faith has caused a response.

The second source is a desire to belive that the bible is the literal truth. This causes a response to try to give genisis a more scientific explanation in a desire to compete with the 'obviously' wrong evolution theory.

[Fortunate]

The reason that a topic like this is problematic is that you have made a statement that dismisses faith as a selfish activity, when many religious people see themselves as less selfish than average. Your statement also reduces a very complex set of feelings and thoughts that these people have to a simple issue. While worded relatively gently, it still could potentially be the start of a pointless heated debate.

I will close the thread if it turns into that.

I don't have much time now, but I wanted to post something here. Religion impacts people's feelings, so purely logical arguments and analyses may miss the crux of the issues. A jumble of powerful feelings including love, hate, fear, and a longing for security come into play and, in fact, are central.

Second, every person is different from every other person. Every person who would answer "yes" if asked "do you believe in creationism?" has a different makeup from anyone else who would answer "yes" to the same question. Stereotyping them is just as misleading as stereotyping Serbs, Croats, or Americans.

[RalofTyr]

Believers in Science/Evolution*: Fact based and most see it to believe it. The build from known facts that follow logic.

Believers in Creationism: Faith-based, feelings oriented. They belive in creationism because that's what their gut tells them.


*Not making it seem that evolution is a belief system like religion intentionally

[Fortunate]

Wikipedia gives at least two different definitions of the term "creationism." If the term means simply the belief that the universe was created by a conscious entity, then I do not see any incompatibility between that belief and science. The fact that we can understanding how an automobile works, for instance, does not preclude the possibility that someone created it.

The second meaning of "creationism" is the belief that God created man "as is," rather than through evolution.

[phaishazamkhan]

Hopefully this question will get the thread locked down or someone will sneak in an answer.
How come Jewish rabbis understand that Genesis and the creation myth are just a way of showing the power of their god rather than a literal interpretation of how the universe might have come into being? Why are fundamental dispensationalist evangelicals (et al) so literal when it comes to their book?

[hhEb09'1]

Why are fundamental dispensationalist evangelicals (et al) so literal when it comes to their book?

The fundament in fundamentalist?

[KaiYeves]

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that...
But also not so much standard as much as instilled. There are many ways to "live on" after death. Carl Sagan "lives on..."
And welcome to BAUT too.
Don't eat my doughnuts.
Leave my Dr Pepper alone...
And there should be no problems

Yes, welcome to BAUT!

Don't touch my sushi.

Don't insult Robert Ballard

And I will also be your friend.
Of course he lives on- he is one with The Force. ;-)

[transreality]

Hopefully this question will get the thread locked down or someone will sneak in an answer.
How come Jewish rabbis understand that Genesis and the creation myth are just a way of showing the power of their god rather than a literal interpretation of how the universe might have come into being? Why are fundamental dispensationalist evangelicals (et al) so literal when it comes to their book?

Not just on this issue, not just religous issues, but in the west there is a very black/white, right/wrong way of looking at things, it actually underpins science, but doesn't transfer well to moral affairs, is the truth of it.

imo.

[George]

I think there are two sources of creationism.

First is a response to percieved attacks on the basis of faith from science. The attacks dont have to be real, tho I think some are, but the perception that has grown that science is trying to disprove faith has caused a response.

Yes, though I would say it may not be so much that creationists see science as trying to disprove faith, rather it is more likened to a view by creationists that the growth of science is casting a longer shadow upon a foundational literal interpretation of a few chapters in Genesis. YEC is active in trying to get light to shine on the shadows. They know that faith can trump theory, but they also know plausibility to any belief is critical, since blind faith is very limited. But you are correct, it is a response in dealing with what modern science is saying.

The second source is a desire to belive that the bible is the literal truth. This causes a response to try to give genisis a more scientific explanation in a desire to compete with the 'obviously' wrong evolution theory.

Yep. It would be wonderful if their literal interpretation walked harmoniously with mainstream science. It doesn’t. The first big stumble came from within their lower ranks: Galileo. The literal interpretation of Geocentricity failed. A new interpretation emerged that proved perfectly fine and the subsequent swallowing of some humble pie for mankind was overdue. This exemplifies the crux of the problem; a new interpretation is overdue that allows scientific illumination upon those passages. Not surprisingly, it isn’t happening, partly because we all tend to believe what we want to believe. Time, however, will allow only the plausible to remain.

How come Jewish rabbis understand that Genesis and the creation myth are just a way of showing the power of their god rather than a literal interpretation of how the universe might have come into being?

They join a large body of Christians and other faiths that do not see science in conflict with creation accounts. But it is a good point.

Why are fundamental dispensationalist evangelicals (et al) so literal when it comes to their book?

Because reading it appears more literal than metaphorical. Also, these leaders become less powerful if they suddenly find themselves in a turbulent nebula of contradictory views. Both leaders and followers want clear and logical answers to life. Who doesn’t? Science has benefited enormously from objective constraints to get answers, but this limitation prevents much that can be imposed on religion. A new literal interpretation might actually be correct and science, though limited, will have some influence upon it if the interpretation is to be seen as plausible.

[KaiYeves]

Because reading it appears more literal than metaphorical. Also, these leaders become less powerful if they suddenly find themselves in a turbulent nebula of contradictory views. Both leaders and followers want clear and logical answers to life. Who doesn’t? Science has benefited enormously from objective constraints to get answers, but this limitation prevents much that can be imposed on religion. A new literal interpretation might actually be correct and science, though limited, will have some influence upon it if the interpretation is to be seen as plausible.

And they give us progressives, who do accept science, a bad name. :-(

[Neverfly]

Not just on this issue, not just religous issues, but in the west there is a very black/white, right/wrong way of looking at things, it actually underpins science, but doesn't transfer well to moral affairs, is the truth of it.

imo.

I would question what you mean by "the west."

If anything, Western Europe and The United States seem entirely too open minded to me. Very liberal, social and the exact opposite of what you just described

[Robert Tulip]

The reason that a topic like this is problematic is that you have made a statement that dismisses faith as a selfish activity, when many religious people see themselves as less selfish than average.

"Eternal life" is one of those religious terms which are misunderstood. Defined as "immortality", taking eternal life as the object of faith is indeed selfish and wrong. However, eternal life can also be understood fruitfully and coherently as participation in timeless reality. My take on this sees eternity in terms of Plato's three subjects at the academy - logic, physics and ethics. For logic, eternity is found in mathematical relations such as pi, for physics, eternity is found in everlasting laws such as those of motion and thermodynamics, while for ethics, eternity is found in timeless values such as goodness, beauty and love. On this interpretation, the statement in John 3:16 that believers would have eternal life did not mean their souls would exist for ever but that their lives would demonstrate the timeless values of ethics. This is an example of how a spiritual teaching can be interpreted in accordance with modern empiricism, rather than as a magical inversion of science. The task in renewing theology in accord with science is to interpret heaven along the lines of the phrase of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer 'the beyond in the midst of the world', rather than as the traditional myth of an afterlife. E-ternity literally means 'outside time' not 'lasting forever'. It is a property of relations, laws and values, not of objects.

[EvilEye]

We all live on after death.....just as we were here before life as we understand it.

There is no more or less energy in the universe than there was at the beginning.

It just changes form. You existed before yourself, and will after.

But your consciousness is a pattern that ends, and chances are when you die, so it does.

I am part star, but I don't glow.

You are part supernovae, but you aren't glowing brighter than me right now.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by antoniseb
The reason that a topic like this is problematic is that you have made a statement that dismisses faith as a selfish activity, when many religious people see themselves as less selfish than average.

(snip) This is an example of how a spiritual teaching can be interpreted in accordance with modern empiricism, rather than as a magical inversion of science. (snip)

Robert Tulip, I think you gave a good example of interpretation at work.
In given the unknowns of one thing or another, we are left guessing.

So I agree in principle. Lined as an example... To all readers:
Let's prove Antoniseb wrong in how civil and well we can discuss this.

[EvilEye]

Sometimes I wonder if what they knew back then was misinterpreted.

Let me fix it...

From Stardust we were made, and to stardust we shall return.

[transreality]

I would question what you mean by "the west."

If anything, Western Europe and The United States seem entirely too open minded to me. Very liberal, social and the exact opposite of what you just described

I'm not referring in this sense to fundamentalism vs. liberality etc. But rather to a western (I think) concept of the importance to the individual of being seen to be correct (think of the wall pink floyd was complaining about being a brick in). I am sure this underpins the heat in many of the debates on this very forum, as it is important to the integrity of science and 'professionalism'. So each individual is free to champion his point of view on the assumption it seems the correct one...

This by necessity precludes the correctness of different views, a position which is actually rather unnecessary when it comes to many moral issues.

[davedrum]

There can only be one resolution to the eternal quest which conciousness itself raises within the mind of humans and that is to accept how mysterious and confounding it is that our biological minds,subject to all natural parameters found therein,will t death, cease to exist and what naturally emenated from the mind/brain will cease to question the nature of its own conciousness. The problems/questions arising in life and purely existential and should be celebrated on purely their own terms! yet i wish it were still possible to remain always chilled and cool about such a statement!

[John Mendenhall]

There can only be one resolution to the eternal quest which conciousness itself raises within the mind of humans and that is to accept how mysterious and confounding it is that our biological minds,subject to all natural parameters found therein,will t death, cease to exist and what naturally emenated from the mind/brain will cease to question the nature of its own conciousness. The problems/questions arising in life and purely existential and should be celebrated on purely their own terms! yet i wish it were still possible to remain always chilled and cool about such a statement!

Keep in mind that the hidden agenda in current biological research, and especially genetic research, is immortality.

We probably won't make it. Our children might.

Sleep well.