Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew
To repeat, I don't claim the Bible is any less satisfactory in terms of spiritual truths.
As far as interpreting it loosely, my view is that it is "literalists" -- i.e., so-called "literalists," for which reason I'm glad you used the scare quotes! -- are the ones whose interpretation is loose. In my experience, they are incredibly dismissive of any textual inconsistencies, know next to nothing about the history of either the texts or the church, and lift passages out of their context routinely.
|
What is it that theistic evolutionists try to accomplish with their scrutiny of “textual inconsistencies”? An opposition to literalists, and an alliance with atheists?
It's clear that most theistic evolutionists find literalists to be a greater threat to their earthly lifestyle than they do atheists.
Quote:
|
So what? The Bible also nowhere claims that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. And yet, whether one is a Christian or an atheist or anything else besides, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.
|
You don’t seem to be thinking about different levels of importance of scriptural text. The words “in the beginning God created” is more general, more central, more important than the details of, for example, the conflict of accounts of the two theives hurling insults at Jesus vs only one.
Quote:
Evolution is compatible with atheism (at least the non-science-denying varieties). And evolution is also compatible with Christianity (at least the non-science-denying varieites).
If you want to launch a general assault on the viability of science itself, okay -- and it's for this reason, incidentally, that I think conservative Christians have ironically adopted the same epistemology as the very postmodern relativists they decry. But in that event, there are bigger problems.
|
NOT AN ASSUALT ON SCIENCE, BUT A QUESTIONING OF SCIENTISTS. A questioning of the scientific community as a group.
The “assault on science” straw man is always built by atheists and theistic evolutionists alike, and it never matters how clear the truth is made. If there’s one “same old line re-hashed time and again” thing in creation / evolution debates, that’s it – that anyone who’s not a Geneis disregarding evolutionist is anti-science.
I wish that could be settled once and for all, but it never is. It won’t be any time at all before, somewhere on these forums, a creationist will be accused of being anti-science. It’s emotioal, it can be politically helpful, but it’s always dishonest.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by marc9000] Isn’t it your claim that was fine in the old days before Darwin, yet now it needn’t be taken as seriously because of what we now know?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matthew
If you can show me where I claimed that, let me know.
|
I may be confusing you with Miller, but you’ve given no indication that you disagree with him on much of anything. From page 257 of 'Finding Darwin’s God';
Quote:
|
In order to reveal himself to a desert tribe six thousand years ago, a Creator could hardly have lectured them about DNA and RNA, about gene duplication and allopatric speciation. Instead, knowing exactly what they would understand, He spoke to them in the direct and lyrical language of Genesis.
|
The obvious implication of theistic evolution is that things have changed (evolved) now, that the Bible is to be looked at in a different light now that we know so many scientific things.
Quote:
|
What I would actually claim is that even most of the earliest interpreters of scripture, both Christians of the first few centuries AD and Jews long before that, did not interpret the text literally either. This claim has the virtue of being true.
|
If that were true, the original manuscripts would have been lost/disregarded/rewritten to the extent that King James wouldn’t have had anything to work with some 1500 years later.
Quote:
|
Moreover, to repeat yet again, I do not think the spiritual message has become any less serious than ever.
|
So a lack of literalism does not sacrifice seriousness? It is less serious if it is increasingly disregarded in the political realm.
Quote:
And yet, abortion, gay mariage, and conservation do not follow from anything about evolution. You are committing the "naturalistic fallacy" here.
I will happily admit that there are biologists who are also guilty of this fallacy. They, like you, are wrong.
Biology can tell us what the natural basis is for such behaviors. It cannot tell us whether we ought to condone them, morally or legally.
|
Sorry, but it can and does. Scientific “Natural basis for behaviors” can get legitimate consideration in courts of law. If you tell me that it doesn’t, or it doesn’t to any noticable degree, there’s no question that getting it there is one of the strongest political desires of the activist atheist community. And theistic evolutionists don’t seem to mind.
Quote:
|
As I noted in an earlier post, I think you've poisoned the well. You simply don't accept their sincerity, so anything they could say to demonstrate their sincerity is just more evidence of how deceitful they are.
|
That goes both ways of course – you seem very dismissive of anything a “literalist” would say.
Quote:
|
No. I've read many of his columns before, though, and have never been impressed by the quality of his reasoning.
|
I'm not surprised. Here's how the book starts;
Quote:
|
One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. The issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. The may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education. Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence again and again.
|
As you've pointed out, there are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't stop it from being the rule.
Evolution seems to be one of the strongest political uniters of today. The gradualism, chance, long periods of time, purposelessness, etc. really seem to bring people together on how people should relate to each other. The unconstrained vision - never ending change.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matthew
So he's an indirect religion advocate? Hm.
|
He leaves religion out of it. It’s possible to do that with the terms constrained / unconstrained. I’m really surprised the terms aren’t used more often in political discussions. Without them, liberals/evolutionists often have the advantage of labeling a constrained view of politics as religious, therefore requiring it to be kept separate (or eliminated) from state. A defined view of imperfect human nature is not necessarily religious. The various speculation of the U.S. founders that resulted in our constitution could actually refer to imperfect human nature (in the Federalist Papers for example) without being accused of establishing religion. They wouldn't be able to get by with it today.
Quote:
|
Attempts to divide up the world into opposed categories like liberal/conservative, left/right, constrained/unconstrained typically fail miserably. Reality is more complicated than that.
|
Maybe not the world, but it works pretty well in the U.S. We have Republicans and Democrats. The “religious right” and the non-religious left. The “atheist right” or “religious left” are not common terms in political discussion.
Quote:
|
What constraints? Biblical "literalism" makes up its own version of the Bible to affirm "literally." No constraints whatsoever.
|
Biblical literalists do not make up the ten commandments. They do not make up the need for a savior. They don’t make up a lot of things that theistic evolutionists make up.
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, forgvie me if I find the idea that "the unconstrained vision requires elite leaders to a much larger extent than the constrained one does" a bit silly. When I see various conservative televangelists whipping up stadium-sized crowds, I think it's pretty clear that the crowd is more than happy to put itself in the hands of "elite" leaders.
|
You're forgiven, if you'll remember one very important thing; conservative televangelists are
separated from state, liberal political leaders are often
not separated from state.
Quote:
|
I was just hinting that I find a great deal of behavior by self-professed "Christians" on this board to be utterly antithetical to Christian ethics.
|
And the rude atheists get a free pass?
Quote:
Give me a break. Coulter once mocked pro-choice doctors' use of terms by saying that someone should "perform a procedure with a rifle" on one of them. Viciousness. I truly cannot think of any conservative pundit I find more offensive to basic decency, or who I take as less indicative of Christian ethics.
Which is saying something, considering that Limbagh once referred to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog."
If such things have been wished upon them, that too is deserving of condemnation.
Which excuses what, exactly? My parents had ingrained in me that two wrongs don't make a right before I was ten.
|
What did they say about having double standards? About accusing one political side of viciousness, as if the other side didn’t also have it?
Accusing one side of two conflicting groups of behavior that both sides display is an indicator of an earlier alliance with one side. I try to avoid doing it, but I'll admit that I do sometimes. I'll freely admit that I have an earlier alliance with Christianity. Do theistic evolutionists BEGIN with a sympathy towards atheism?