Jump to content


Photo

Should Be Required Reading -- What Christians Believe


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:40 AM

This latest report on a survey from the Barna Group opens with a chilling message (all emphases mine):

 

We live in a world of competing ideas and worldviews. In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, Christians are more aware of (and influenced by) disparate views than ever. But just how much have other worldviews crept into Christians’ perspectives? Barna’s research shows that only 17 percent of Christians who consider their faith important and attend church regularly actually have a biblical worldview1.

 

This report should be required reading for anyone here who ever uses the phrases, "Christians say ...," "Christians believe ...," "Christians do ...," or "Christians are ..."

 

It goes on:

 

In partnership with Summit Ministries, Barna conducted a study among practicing Christians in America to gauge how much the tenets of other key worldviews—including new spirituality, secularism, postmodernism and Marxism—have influenced Christians’ beliefs about the way the world is and how it ought to be. Barna’s new research found strong agreement with ideas unique to nonbiblical worldviews among practicing Christians. This widespread influence upon Christian thinking is evident not only among competing worldviews, but even among competing religions; for example, nearly four in 10 (38%) practicing Christians are sympathetic to some Muslim teachings.

 

Amazing! These were self-professed, allegedly saved, churchgoing practicing Christians being polled!

 

Not surprisingly, millennials and gen-xers are much more likely to stray from biblical worldviews than elders and boomers. Men are more likely than women. City folks are more likely than rural folks. And "Americans of color" are more likely than whites to deny biblical authority, according to the report.

 

The takeaway from this survey is that in debates here it is dangerous to proffer "Christians" as having any kind of a shared worldview. Fact is that less than one-fifth of these surveyed self-called Christians even hold a biblical worldview.

 

Brooke Hempell, senior vice president of research for Barna, says:

 

“The challenge with competing worldviews is that there are fragments of similarities to some Christian teachings, and some may recognize and latch on to these ideas, not realizing they are distortions of biblical truths."

 

One thing to keep in mind is that even among those 17 percent of Christians who surveyed as holding to a biblical worldview and who might find themselves sitting in church pews during the rapture they might still find themselves sitting among friends and relatives while a relatively small number of empty seats will be apparent. Remember Jesus: "I never knew you."

 

My recommendation to those who post here on biblical issues is to copy this survey to their hard drives and refer to it often. Instead of saying, "Christians say ...," they should say, "11% of self-professed, practicing Christians say ..."

 

Finally, this is not a favorable report on the state of today's Christian churches.



#2 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:38 AM

I found this article, a little bit old from 2010, that said only 57% of Protestants can name the four gospels, which means 43% of Protestants can't name the four gospels.  http://www.csmonitor...rs.-Is-that-bad  

 

What's also interesting is the title of the article itself; atheists know more about religion than any other religious group. I think this is largely because atheists, at least in America, are often dissatisfied believers that turned atheist after looking at the Bible and their religion and concluding that it doesn't add up. The actual Pew article says that while atheists/agnostics did the best on the test, those that described themselves as 'nothing in particular' scored worse than the national average.

 

The Pew article about their findings is here: http://www.pewforum....d-implications/

 

If you want to take the quiz they used, 32 short multiple choice questions, you can follow the links in the first article I gave or follow this one: http://www.csmonitor...h-Sabbath-begin

 

I would say try and beat my score, but the best you can do is tie with me. :P 



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 May 2017 - 12:56 PM

My results;

 

Attached File  religulous2.jpg   27.06KB   0 downloads

 

Sorry for the small pic, I have limited space, the space for pics seems to yo yo for me. (I am not saying I am better than an atheist, that is the websites question)

 

(the ones I got wrong were the ones about other religions and the U.S history, such as the Billy graham thing.)

 

(atheists and agnostics got an average of 20 correct answers, if readers are wondering.)

 

 

 

Goku: I would say try and beat my score, but the best you can do is tie with me

 

That's a good knowledge, you are one that informs yourself. Pretty neat getting all of them. You're "laughing" at the superior intellect. ;)


  • Goku likes this

#4 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:09 PM

If you want to take the quiz they used, 32 short multiple choice questions, you can follow the links in the first article I gave or follow this one: http://www.csmonitor...h-Sabbath-begin

 

I would say try and beat my score, but the best you can do is tie with me. :P

 

Drats! I missed the one about Vishnu. Oh well, no loss if I don't know my pagan religions all that well.

 

Not a good test to compare Christians against atheists, however. I'd like to play Bible Trivia against an average atheist and see how well they do when the whole planopy of world's religions don't come into play. Apples to apples, so to speak.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:33 PM

Goku             32

Dave              31

mike (wiz)      27

 

Av for ath/agnosts;  20.9

Av for Jews              20.5

Av for Mormons       20.3

Av for Protestants    16

Av for Catholics        14.7

 

(if I read Dave's post right he got 31.)

 

"What is this, multiple choice?" - Bones - Star Trek, The Undiscovered Country.



#6 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 02:10 PM

Drats! I missed the one about Vishnu. Oh well, no loss if I don't know my pagan religions all that well.

 

Not a good test to compare Christians against atheists, however. I'd like to play Bible Trivia against an average atheist and see how well they do when the whole planopy of world's religions don't come into play. Apples to apples, so to speak.

 

Well it is a test for general religious knowledge, not just Christianity, so I think it is a fair test for Westerners.

 

As for Bible Trivia I went to the site and took their test. I did not do so well on that one; definitely not a test for the casual believer.   31/50   which is 60.8% 

 

Now you Christians have a real chance at beating me. When I clicked on 'play again' the first question was different from any of the questions I had before, so I think they are getting the questions from a larger pool. http://www.christian...ks/?challenge=Y

 

I also tried their 'who wants to be a millionaire' game, and walked away with $32,000.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 May 2017 - 02:39 PM

My score for the bible trivia;

 

 30 correct of 50 questions. (60.0%)

 

And I must say those were some of the most obscure questions I could ever have been asked about the bible. The number of years Eli judged? The number of people saved at Pentecost? The place where some dude visited? (Troaz)..

 

That was horrendous. You'd have to be a pastor that lives in the bible to score high on that. :D

 

 

 

Goku: I also tried their 'who wants to be a millionaire' game, and walked away with $32,000.

 

Lol.



#8 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 May 2017 - 03:52 PM

Did better than I expected on the general religion one - 28/30 (84%). Got the 'salvation comes through faith' one wrong and the one about whether a US public school teacher is allowed to lead a class in prayer.

 

I think I would flunk badly on the Bible trivia one judging by what Mike said, so will give that a miss :)



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 May 2017 - 02:34 AM

That's twice I've been beaten by the Guru, (Goku), I'm starting to feel like this guy did when he met Negan;

 

 

:rotfl3:



#10 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 May 2017 - 09:58 AM

Here we go. Here's the perfect example of what results when 83% of Christians admit to not having a biblical worldview ... among them being pastors of major Christian denominations.

 

Christian pastor in Bible belt admits to personally worshiping Allah

 

Basically, local Muslims bought a church building and converted it into a mosque. There was a big gettogether for the cross-taking-down-ceremony.

 

 

[The Rev. Jim Melnyk, pastor of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,] said he was joined by pastors from the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ and three different Baptist congregations at Saturday’s ceremony, which marked the official conversion of a former Pentecostal church into a mosque. One lay person from the local Presbyterian Church was also present for the “celebration.”

 

 

Melnyk said Christianity and Islam “share common origins and scriptures” and that he felt it was the right thing to do to participate in the mosque opening as a show of respect for Islam, a fellow monotheistic faith.

 

“Christians, Jews and Muslims are all people of the book, and we all claim what the Hebrew Scriptures call the Abrahamic faith,” Melnyk told WND. “We call it the Old Testament, and Muslims also claim the Bible.”

 

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Do Christians actually sit in the pews listening to their pastor's spew this garbage?

 

Me thinks that 17% number might be a tad too high!



#11 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 May 2017 - 04:21 PM

Here's another one along the same lines. Interestingly, the percentage is fairly close.

 

Record few Americans believe Bible is literal word of God

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man."

 

Here's the thing, though. I looked pretty carefully throughout the article and couldn't find a definition of "literally." It makes a difference.

 

If someone called me on the phone and asked me, "Do you take the Bible literally, word for word?" I would answer no.

 

If someone called me on the phone and asked me, "Do you believe the Bible is the actual word of God?" I would answer yes.

 

But you can see from the article lede in the quote above, that the poll confuses the respondent by asking both questions in the same sentence.

 

The reason it makes a difference is because the Bible contains almost 100 different kinds figures of speech, including similes, metaphors, types, analogies, parables, etc.

 

Do I believe that a sword will literally come out of Christ's mouth at the end of the tribulation to slay the remaining unbelievers? No. Not with a literal sword. But everyone who has made a diligent study of the Bible understands what Scripture tells us ... that the sword of the spirit is the word of God; which is sharper than a two-edged sword.

 

Many Bible difficulties can be explained with a proper understanding of where God's word is literal, and where God inspired figures of speech.

 

Personally, I believe that Gallup missed the mark with this poll. It could have been handled differently. I wouldn't take the results as gospel. :)

 

 

Naturally, there are also strong differences in Americans' perspectives on the Bible by religious preference. As a whole, more Christians take the Bible literally than say it is a book of stories and history recorded by man. However, within the broad group of Christians, Protestants (including those who generically refer to themselves as "Christian") lean toward the literalist view, while Catholics divide evenly between seeing the Bible as the literal word of God and saying it is a book of stories. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of those with no religious affiliation fall into the skeptics' camp.



#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 May 2017 - 12:46 AM

 

Here's another one along the same lines. Interestingly, the percentage is fairly close.

 

Record few Americans believe Bible is literal word of God

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man."

 

Here's the thing, though. I looked pretty carefully throughout the article and couldn't find a definition of "literally." It makes a difference.

 

If someone called me on the phone and asked me, "Do you take the Bible literally, word for word?" I would answer no.

 

If someone called me on the phone and asked me, "Do you believe the Bible is the actual word of God?" I would answer yes.

The quote you provided defines literally as "word for word."

 

But you can see from the article lede in the quote above, that the poll confuses the respondent by asking both questions in the same sentence.

You are quite correct that the phrasing of the question and the sample selection can strongly influence responses.  In this case, you had to go to methodology link at the bottom of the article to find the actual question:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

 

Based on the question, as stated and your comment (above), my guess is that you would fall into the "Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally" category. I do.

 

The reason it makes a difference is because the Bible contains almost 100 different kinds figures of speech, including similes, metaphors, types, analogies, parables, etc.

 

Do I believe that a sword will literally come out of Christ's mouth at the end of the tribulation to slay the remaining unbelievers? No. Not with a literal sword. But everyone who has made a diligent study of the Bible understands what Scripture tells us ... that the sword of the spirit is the word of God; which is sharper than a two-edged sword.

 

Many Bible difficulties can be explained with a proper understanding of where God's word is literal, and where God inspired figures of speech.

Yep.

 

 

Personally, I believe that Gallup missed the mark with this poll. It could have been handled differently. I wouldn't take the results as gospel. :)

I'd agree if it were only one poll.  This is a long term series of polls going back over 30 years and the results are fairly consistent.



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:07 AM

 

Piasan: Based on the question, as stated and your comment (above), my guess is that you would fall into the "Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally" category. I do.

 

 

I think that's what Dave is saying though Piasan. I would also put myself in the category you and Dave would, but me and Dave basically accept the creation account as creationists but you are theistic evolutionist. (I don't say that to defy unity, you are also in that category with us if you accept the bible is inspired so I am not saying this to exclude you from our group but rather it seems a significant difference if what they are trying to establish is how many people are creationist).

 

It seems to me the question itself is asked by someone who has a certain concept of creationists, which they would describe as, " the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word," now before you say, "oh here we go a chip on the shoulder from creationists", when you actually think about it, you yourself having been a member of EFF for a while must be able now to see the difference between the stereotype of creationists which most people believe is accurate, and what a creationist really believes.

 

Most people are evolutionist, and their concept of a creationist is how they have written it in blue, but in fact most creationists will in fact take the position that they believe not that the bible is literally true, but that it is inerrant. For example, I don't take Genesis literally because I don't believe serpents can speak, I don't take Genesis literally because when it says "let us make" man in the image of God, I don't believe God is literally a crowd of people. I take it contextually, meaning as creationists we would say that we take Genesis as historical narrative.

 

For a long time evolutionists have pushed the stereotype that the best description of a creationist is a, "literalist" because that particular epithet allows them to portray a simple person that can only take concepts, "literally".

 

"Literalist" is kind of synonymous with being "simple", in some ways. If someone can only take something literally they struggle to think beyond a one dimensional level. There is definitely a connection in that atheists always want to use that word, "literal". But have you ever met a creationist that insists on using that particular word? Only in the sense of trying to convey that they believe that some key events the bible said happened, "literally" happened. Yes we believe God, "literally" flooded the whole world, by Noah's flood. But to then say we are, "literalists", ahahaha - that's blatantly devious, for it isn't a defining word unless we took every sentence literally, but in this respect we are also metaphorists because we probably take an equal portion of the bible metaphorically.



#14 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:32 AM

The quote you provided defines literally as "word for word."

 

But you can see from the article lede in the quote above, that the poll confuses the respondent by asking both questions in the same sentence.

You are quite correct that the phrasing of the question and the sample selection can strongly influence responses.  In this case, you had to go to methodology link at the bottom of the article to find the actual question:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

 

Based on the question, as stated and your comment (above), my guess is that you would fall into the "Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally" category. I do.

 

 

Once again Mike stated it clearer than I could.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I don't fall into any of the categories in your blue. My disagreement has to do somewhat with the definition, but more-importantly, the intent of the word literally.

 

" ... the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, ..."

 

Yes, the Bible is the inspired word of God.

 

No, not everything should be taken in the literal sense. However, because every word is inspired by God, every word should be taken seriously.

 

And that's where the obfuscation of the survey comes in. Just because God uses a figure of speech in the Bible it does not mean that he doesn't intend for us to understand the meaning and importance of what he is telling us. Every figure of speech in the Bible inevitably leads us to some aspect of theological nuance that is vitally important and that should be taken literally.

 

By the survey saying that some things are literal and some things are not it implies that the not-literal things can be omitted and nothing is lost. That is simply not true.

 

God does not waste words, or speak just to hear sounds come out of his mouth.

 

Personally, if I had been asked the survey question I would have stood there and argued with the survey taker. 'Course, that's my nature. When I took the written test to get my commercial big-rig driving license I missed three questions out of 300. Two of them were face-palm revelations. Duh. I knew that! My mistake. One of them was a poorly worded question, like the survey, and I stood there and argued with the lady about it. She finally said, "You got an almost perfect score. Do you really want to hold up your license while you protest one question?"

 

Good point.



#15 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:32 AM

This came out a couple of days ago.

 

How many atheists are there?

 

It isn't the number of atheists this survey revealed that caught my eye. It's that when asked a direct question like, "Do you believe in God?" the number of atheists comes in around 3 percent. However, this survey used a method to "back in" to the question and discovered that the number of atheists is closer to 26 percent. So there must be some cultural pressure involved here.

 

The reason I find this interesting is because of the discussion above in this topic where survey respondents call themselves Christians when asked directly. But my thinking when I read those surveys was that there must be some cultural pressure involved in many of these self-called Christians giving themselves that designation. Their answers to followup questions, however, belies what they designate themselves as.

 

This current survey shows how that works on the atheist side of things too. Interesting.

 

From the article:

 

 

Using a subtle, indirect measurement technique, psychology researchers have found that there are probably a lot more atheists (people who don't believe in God) in the U.S. than show up in telephone polls.

 

It's tough to figure out just how religious or nonreligious different populations of people are. Widely-cited telephone polls (e.g., Gallup, Pew) suggest U.S. atheist prevalence ranging from 3% to 11%. But in the U.S., there's heavy stigma leveled against religious disbelief, which might make people reluctant to disclose their lack of belief over the phone to a stranger. Using a subtle, indirect measurement technique, psychology researchers have found that atheists may represent anywhere from 20% to 35% of the U.S. population.

 

The study, “How many atheists are there?,” appears in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

 



#16 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:23 AM

Gallup is at it again:

 

In U.S., belief in creationist view of humans at an all-time low

 

This is getting to be old news, as we see the numbers of Bible-believing Christians continually erode.

 

 

The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

 

The study concludes:

 

 

Since the Scopes Monkey Trial more than 90 years ago, the inclusion of creationism -- and evolution -- as part of public school curricula has been an ongoing and contentious topic. Often rebranded as "intelligent design," especially as it relates to education, the creationist viewpoint has met defeat in the Supreme Court but continues to surface in curricula across the U.S.

 

There has been an increase in the percentage of those holding the secularist viewpoint in recent years, which aligns with the scientific belief that has been prevalent in public school teaching since the Scopes Monkey Trial. This push and pull with creationism will undoubtedly continue, as this debate about where humans came from rages on.



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:46 AM

The "study" says creation is rebranded as "intelligent design", that strikes me as a fairly ignorant opinion. Strictly speaking the features of intelligent design in any object, living or dead, requires no logical inference as to who or what the designer is if you are merely claiming that design is present in P. if it is present it is present, and extraneous arguments about Who done it, are outside of that argument.

 

I know agnostics that argue intelligent design, the design argument isn't creationism and IDists take offence at that because an IDist isn't stating that the Lord God created life, that is not their argument, they are claiming that intelligent design is the inference to the best cause. As Christians they would submit that they BELIEVE God created life, and so do I, but I myself would not claim to have a sound argument that proves it was God.

 

For example Meyer argues abductively, saying ID is the inference to the best cause, but if you asked him if he believes Noah's flood created the fossils he wouldn't accept that, nor would he defend Genesis or even the bible, IDists argue that ID is in life and that's about it. Behe said;

 

 

wiki: As to the identity of the intelligent designer, Behe responds that if, deep in the woods, one were to come across a group of flowers that clearly spelled out the name "LEHIGH", one would have no doubt that the pattern was the result of intelligent design. Determining who the designer was, however, would not be nearly as easy. He remarks:

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer." — Darwin's Black Box, pp. 195–196

 

The atheist wiki article cynically alludes that it is mutually exclusive to believe in God yet argue design without referring to him. This is not true, because if we only want to know if X is designed then it becomes extraneous to talk about the designer.

 

So then in that context, the fight against ID for fear it is creationism, is basically an appeal to consequences, they reject ID not because the argument is correct, but because the argument favours God's existence even though it doesn't mention God. So the motive to reject ID by claiming it is religious, doesn't affect the veracity of what Behe says - that we can recognise design when we come across it.

 

For example to argue that the eyeball is constructed to see, is not religious it's scientific. Is it, "religious" to believe an eyeball is constructed to give sight?

 

LOL!



#18 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 May 2017 - 10:50 PM

The "study" says creation is rebranded as "intelligent design", that strikes me as a fairly ignorant opinion. Strictly speaking the features of intelligent design in any object, living or dead, requires no logical inference as to who or what the designer is if you are merely claiming that design is present in P.

 

In a logical vacuum that is true, but in the context of the intelligent design movement intelligent design is a re-branding of creationism. The short version is that the US Supreme Court ruled, in Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987), that teaching creationism in science class is illegal because it violates the separation of church and state. I understand in the UK there are slightly different rules and I don't know how it would go over there, but in America that's how it is.

 

When this decision came out creationist organizations changed their tactic, and in an effort to put lipstick on a pig and make creationism sound scientific they kept virtually all of the same arguments, wording, and phrasing, and simply changed "creationism" to "intelligent design". This is well documented in court.

 

The infamous creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, had versions of the book both prior and after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling. The book said prior to the ruling, "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

 

After the ruling it said this instead, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

 

If you define A as X, then define B as X, then logic says that A and B are identical; two words for the same thing. Therefore, using the creationist's own textbook, we can see that intelligent design is a re-branding of creationism.

 

As for agnostics who accept intelligent design, I am sorry to say but they are either very confused, or are just saying those things to be nice.

 

Think about it, if you accept ID there aren't many options for you to consider. Obviously there is God, but if you think it is God then obviously you wouldn't be an agnostic; you may be agnostic as to who the specific deity is or something but you would still be some form of theist. You could say it is aliens, but recall that one of the main premises of ID is that life is so complex that it requires an intelligent designer and cannot come about only through natural processes. So aliens couldn't have come about through natural abiogenesis/evolution, which then leaves us with God and more aliens. If we reject God to show that you don't have to be a theist to accept ID then we are left with an infinite regress of aliens which is not satisfying IMO, and given that the universe had a beginning an infinite regress of aliens would be impossible save multiverse theory. Also, if we say these mysterious aliens could have come about through natural abiogenesis/evolution, then why not save a step and just say that's what happened with us? The only other option besides God and aliens I can come up with, is that we are in the Matrix and someone with access to the Matrix program designed us. I think the Matrix explanation suffers from the same problem as the alien solution; someone had to develop this Matrix and this someone was clearly complex and via the premise of ID must require a creator too; are they stuck in an infinite regress of Matrices too? The point is that all roads of ID eventually lead you to God. God also suffers from the same problem; any being that created the universe must be incredibly complex, much more complex than you or I, but the God explanation also means supernatural, and despite its' ad hoc nature you can propose that the premise of ID does not apply to the supernatural due to the different properties between the supernatural and the natural. Again that would be ad hoc, especially since we have no scientific evidence of the supernatural or what properties it would have, but it wouldn't make it untrue.



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 04:13 AM

 

 

Goku: If you define A as X, then define B as X, then logic says that A and B are identical; two words for the same thing. Therefore, using the creationist's own textbook, we can see that intelligent design is a re-branding of creationism.

 

But the problem with this argument is that it doesn't affect whether an object is intelligently designed.

 

There may be some IDists, a portion or percentage, who are basically creationist but there may be a portion that isn't. In the same way we could say that most evolutionists are theistic evolutionists but that wouldn't mean that evolution theory was religious.

 

So then, it's a tautology that creationists must be IDist and argue design but it doesn't follow that IDists must be creationists. There are IDists which don't for example, accept Genesis as anything more than metaphor.

 

The reason why IDists may have taken a text and clipped out the parts pertaining to a Creator God, is because they were likely using the creationist material that favoured intelligent design. I propose that the ID movement, wouldn't have re-written anything about a global flood, nor would they have a textbook that contained examples of arguing a catastrophe created the rocks. So to show ID is creationism, LOGICALLY, rather than in a court where there aren't logical experts, you have to show that ID teaches the things creationism teaches, and not just the parts of creationism which are ID, which is only a strict subset of creationism. Creationism is a superset. I may have misunderstood it, but what I mean is in the following diagram, I would argue that IDism is the blue circle, and creation the orange, and the middle white part is ID. But the white part wouldn't include anything about floods of Noah for example. The blue part would contain the absence of God, or His name, but the orange part would state that the bible is inerrantly true and that the Lord God is the intelligent designer. So I predict in the trial, they could only show that IDists argued the ID part of creation, and I propose they never mentioned the parts of creation which are not ID in their textbooks, such as Noah's flood, epigenetics to explain the curse and existence of carnivores, or a flood chronology to explain disease.

 

 Attached File  ID.jpg   22.64KB   0 downloads

 

 

 

Goku: In a logical vacuum that is true, but in the context of the intelligent design movement intelligent design is a re-branding of creationism.

 

 

Even if it was, this wouldn't remove the features of intelligent design in a lifeform. The construction of an eyeball with the goal of seeing, isn't a re-branding of creationism. To believe that an eyeball is constructed to give sight, is not a religious belief. The specified complexity and contingency planning in an eyeball is a matter of scientific fact.

 

Your mistake is to CONFLATE intelligent design, with the, "intelligent design movement".

 

I myself made claims about intelligent design, not any ID movement. The intelligent design William Paley expounded, was written before the ID movement existed.

 

I believe you have equivocated, Goku.

 

But all I am asking you to do is to tell me if the features of intelligent design are in an object, or not in an object. The fear that ID is in a lifeform makes evolutionists tell themselves they must say that ID is religion so that they can use semantics to define ID as, "not science" but like I said before, semantics won't change the fact that an eyeball is constructed to give sight. This will remain a scientific fact even if ID movement is termed, "religious".

 

Surely you can see that they want to falsely dichotomise it so as to make ID fall into the group, "religion" so that they can dismiss it's arguments as religion.

 

It just isn't mutually exclusive to argue for intelligent design but only believe by faith that intelligent designer is God. If it is not mutually exclusive, then it seems to me your complaints that agnostics are IDists just represent your displeasure that intelligent design favours God's existence.

 

Should ID be regarded as religion, because the consequences of ID will lead to it favouring theism and Christianity? (that is really the position of evolutionists, and all non-religious secularists, an appeal to consequences. But if it can be shown logically you can believe and object is designed without believing in God then it follows that an inference that something is an intelligently designed thing doesn't require religious belief. For example, to believe the eyeball is constructed to give sight, the most sane and absurdly patent teleology imaginable, even children can acknowledge as a fact, doesn't require belief that God designed it.

 

Sure - I can make a separate argument, that the best explanation of that design is an omniscient God. I agree that would be my argument, but that argument isn't the same syllogism as my ID argument. 

 

You seem to be tacitly revealing the truth - that because intelligent design basically favours God more than any other conclusion, "therefore ID is religion" but it isn't religion just because it favours God more than atheism, it just means it's a scientific fact that is better evidence that God exists than that He doesn't, so really you are arguing that because ID favours theism, it should be regarded as not science, (which is the appeal to consequences. EXAMPLE; "E=MC2 can't be true or it will lead to explosions, therefore E=MC2 is not science, it is violence and should come under the category of criminal activity".

 

(think about it)



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 05:22 AM

Goku, I guess what I am really saying is that creationists are arguing intelligent design so it's a reversal of the truth, it's not IDists arguing creation but it can be provably shown that creationists argue what IDists argue but IDists don't argue what creationists argue, such as a flood, etc..

 

When they ID books use the word creation this is synonymous with design, but if they don't argue what creationists argue then they aren't creationists. So can the accusors show me where they argued baramins from the flood, epigenetics and a change from carnivore to herbivore, etc..? Flood deposits? Evidence of myths all around the world arguing for a flood, these are the usual defining characteristics for us creationists, we argue an inerrant bible, that the Lord is the Creator. Idists don't necessarily believe the bible is inerrantly true and they don't argue God is the Creator, they believe he is, but some can clearly be IDist and not even be theist, because some genuine agnostics believe we simply can't know who or what the designer is. Calling those agnostics delusion won't change the fact that it is clearly possible to be agnostic and IDist. You can't say they aren't true IDists without arguing the no-true-scotsman fallacy, to not be IDist you have to not believe ID is in life and if they do, then being agnostic is not contrary to being Idist.

 

I remember Morgan Freeman said he believes life is the intelligent designer if I remember correctly. Sure, I don't agree but the point is he would still recognise intelligent design in life.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users