ecco
Veteran Member
Today's Liberal Christians read Genesis as allegory. However, there is no reason to assume that it was written as allegory. There is every reason to recognize that, for thousands of years, it was considered factual truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Today's Liberal Christians read Genesis as allegory. However, there is no reason to assume that it was written as allegory. There is every reason to recognize that, for thousands of years, it was considered factual truth.
Oh yes, I know that very well.
It's still a nut I'm trying to crack apart more to see the brains of that walnut.
That is an interesting truth. Another one of my nuts I'm trying to crack apart to see inside of is how, in ancient times when they would consider these stories, their mythologies, they would simply approach them as "just the way things are". It became that way for them, because that is simply how everyone spoke of these things. It was their language of their world, just a science is the language of ours.
I honestly do not believe in looking at these basic "truths of reality", which their myths supplied them, that they would be trying to make them "scientific truth" in their minds the way modern man would because of living in the scientific age. It was an entirely different backdrop of reality, the mythic backdrop, as opposed to the scientific, or rationalist backdrop against which we live today.
As such, the average person back then did not look anything like a modern fundamentalist, who, when they look at their myths they try to make them "sciency", or they clumsily try to read from that Rationalist perspective. Mythic perspectives don't look at things in the same way.
And this is what is so maddening about modern fundamentalism. They're not really groking on what the mythic structure offers in way of its symbolic truths, because they aren't seeing them through that lens. They're trying to see God through a rationalist lens, not an 'imaginal' lens, which sees these things symbolically apprehended spiritually, rather than as bland rational propositions, which is what they make them.
I believe this how the ancients approached these mythologies, not at a conscious level, but through belief in its reality as a "magical" reality. That is symbolism at work. Theirs was a mythic world, and the language of myth spoke to, informed, and shaped it.
I've devoted enough time to this topic, including ten years as a Christian myself, and years of debating Christians on the Internet. Open-mindedness does not require reading every book or website that is pointed to. Do these people have anything new to say that we haven't seen before?
If you want to pique the skeptic's interest, you'll need to give him a motivation to look at what you recommend. You'll need to provide at least a capsule summary of the argument that you are recommending just to know whether this is a new argument or new evidence, or material already considered.
A good mind is never closed. Once you close your mind to a possibility, you cut yourself off from the possibility of being shown to be wrong if in fact you are and it can be show, Open-mindedness is nothing more or less than the willingness to consider evidence and the argument applied to it dispassionately, and with a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. The Ken Ham illustration referred to in this thread (somebody posted the video) is an excellent example of the difference between an open-minded science educator and a closed-minded Christian creationist.
- The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
No faith is necessary to accept the theory of evolution. It would take faith to reject it.
Do you remember this from a few days ago? We were discussing abiogenesis at the time, and you were behaving in the same way - asking others to educate you when it is clear that you have no interest in the science :
If you cared about understanding this science, you would already know it. You would have been following it for years as those who are interested have been doing.
And if you suddenly developed a sincere interest in these matters, the information is available to you on the Internet. You would be Googling the subject and reading about the state-of-the-art in abiogenesis.
So, if you want to learn science, do it the way the people you are asking to tutor you did it. You are responsible for your education, not Religious Forums members. Enroll in a university course on abiogenesis, or go down to your local bookseller and purchase any of the fine books written on the subject for lay consumption.
If I'm wrong about your purpose, then you will begin your journey today and find something about abiogenesis from a science source - not religious apologetics - read it, and come back to this forum to tell us what you learned and ask any questions your reading created for you.
Surprise me, and take me up on this offer, one I've made a dozen times before, and one which has never been accepted.
And if you suddenly developed a sincere interest in these matters, the information is available to you on the Internet. You would be Googling the subject and reading about the state-of-the-art in abiogenesis.
So, if you want to learn science, do it the way the people you are asking to tutor you did it. You are responsible for your education, not Religious Forums members. Enroll in a university course on abiogenesis, or go down to your local bookseller and purchase any of the fine books written on the subject for lay consumption.
If I'm wrong about your purpose, then you will begin your journey today and find something about abiogenesis from a science source - not religious apologetics - read it, and come back to this forum to tell us what you learned and ask any questions your reading created for you.
Surprise me, and take me up on this offer, one I've made a dozen times before, and one which has never been accepted.
You didn't surprise me or take me up on the offer, which is how I know that you are not sincere about learning the science.
I know what wisdom is, and I don't go to the Christian Bible for it. If intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, wisdom is knowing what to want. If you mistakenly think that great wealth will make you happy, and are intelligent, you can probably amass great wealth. But you didn't choose what to want wisely, so you aren't happy.
Genesis is ideas and assumptions. It's unsupported claims.
And you never will for reasons already explained to you here, Morton's demon, also called a faith-based confirmation bias and antiprocessing.
The theory is correct. It's settled science, something that has also been explained to you.
Remember this at https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/shocking-claim-to-macro-evolution.220699/page-13#post-6106103
- "Your task is hopeless. You are trying to persuade rational skeptics well-trained in critical thinking to abandon a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture - and replace it with a sterile idea that can do none of that, one that can't be used for anything of value?"
Disagree, but I can concede the point to you, say that I choose to believe evolution occurred by faith, and still be on an even footing with the creationists, who has done exactly that in choosing his belief.
Except that the theory is still standing, and on a very firm foundation. The mountains of evidence that I referred to and that you can't see isn't going away, evidence that can only be understood in one of two ways, and one is absurd. Either life evolved on earth as the theory suggests, or some extremely powerful agent or agents rigged the earth to look as if it did, including building strata of fossilized life forms that never lived, with the most primitive appearing would be found deepest and with a combination of radionuclides that made them appear oldest, with progressively more modern forms appearing in shallower strata. And then inserted ERVs into DNA in nested hierarchies. Then strategically arranged ring species throughout the world.
It's like a murder trial where there are only two possible interpretations of the evidence against the defendant - he's guilty, or some malevolent agent or agents went to the trouble to make it appear so. No other possibilities. This is the same, unless you can come up with a third possibility were the theory ever falsified.
This is bad news for Christian creationists, because neither possibility is consistent with fundamentalist Christian theology. Both scenarios exclude the possibility of a loving god that wants to be known, understood, believed, and worshiped by man being the source of the tree of life we find today.
These are the same process - adjusting the narrative to account for the evidence and going where the evidence leads - and constitutes good science. If additional evidence surfaces not accounted for by the narrative, the narrative is modified to accommodate the new findings, just like with good detective work. One starts with a working hypothesis based on what is known initially, and then tries to find supporting or disconfirming evidence, modifying one's working narrative of the crime as more evidence becomes available
The theory is not in crisis. Saying otherwise is a creationist apologetics.
What value do you think the Bible is to somebody that has learned to be happy without it?
Creationist apologetics are of no value to an unbeliever. Their reputation for honesty is abysmal, and I would never go to any such site for information. Nothing that is known to be true is known only to creationists, and therefore if any content on such a site is factual, it can be found elsewhere in mutually acceptable sources. Cite those if they exist. If they don't, then it's just more misinformation.
Coming to critical thinkers with Christian apologetics or sending them to such websites is counterproductive to your apparent purpose. Apologetics are for you believers, to relieve any cognitive dissonance created by evidence presented by the academic community such as that supporting evolutionary theory.
Consider the recent claim here that evolutionary science is in crisis. That might be comforting to a creationist, and it might be believed by somebody completely unfamiliar with the science, but telling that to a group of people well-versed in the subject simply disqualifies that person as a source for information on evolution.
Apologists who share their apologetics outside of church or Sunday school are apt to find their words used to argue against their beliefs. That's how I use them. I've got a few stock pieces of Christian apologetics that are stunningly dishonest, including one about human evolution, and one about an apocryphal Patrick Henry quote.
I don't think that has been established. Micro- and macroevolution are the same process qualitatively, varying only by degree, like the walk across a country that one poster described to you beginning with a single step. The first step - the microwalking if you will - and the whole journey, or macrowalking, are the same process varying only in magnitude.
Evolution is evolution, whether we are talking about one generation of evolution or a million, it's the same process.
You didn't define either term. How is that clarification? Are others to read your links and try to figure out what you got from them?
I think that all or almost all Jehovah's Witnesses are creationists. This is about the anti-intellectualism in the denomination :
The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling
Wow. This really is cult-like.
"If we are in continued association with those who do not believe the same, it can erode our thinking and convictions… It is one thing to work on a job with others, and quite another matter to immerse oneself in an institution of “learning.”
That form of isolation is about mind-control. "The Devil will steal your faith if you talk with heathens!". Make them afraid of losing faith, to keep their knowledge tightly under their control, where they will "protect" you under their wing.
That's not faith in the least. "Faith" that is afraid of the light of day, is just Fear wearing a mask and calling itself of God.
ecco
Veteran Member
It's already clear from your previous posts why you have come to the conclusions you have.
Here you say you never found someone...
Here you say you found someone...
Here you say you converted him...
Here you double down...
From what you wrote above, it's clear you were not being honest. I've been in forums for many years. I have seen people come to question their religious beliefs. I have never found an atheist come to accept Jesus. Why would I have a discussion with someone who talks about honesty and then demonstrates he is not?
I think you will find that most of us have been to these sites. I think you should know that you are not the first Creo in this forum. Therefore you should also know that those who preceded you have posted links to these sites and posted walls of cut and paste text from them.
Do you really think you can post anything from these sites that has not been posted before - over and over and over?
That's pretty blatant proselytizing.
ecco
Veteran Member
They weren't looking at them as myths or as science. They just accepted them as "that's the way it is" reality. Although I'm sure that some preferred Ares to Athena, both were considered actual gods just as today most Americans believe the Christian God is real.
Yes. Even when the modern Christian accepts parts of the Bible as allegory, he still accepts God as real, not myth.
Patriottechsan
Member
S o it just boils down to you won't get passed your bias & be academically honest like the 2 Dr Engineer. That's what I said I usually find. But as usual they use various reasons like you to mask the real reason of academic dishonesty & total bias.
You're entitled. Doesn't make you correct nor does it validate your self perceived academic superiority. My Engineer felt likewise but being honest & true to his commitment to the rules. He is now Eternally grateful.
So be it. Hopefully someday you'll be awakened & motivated to truly research for the frauds put over on you & the bad science of macro evolution. You aren't open now but hopefully someday you will.
I know this had my Engineer been dishonest academically & let his bias so rule him he'd never found the truth as he did. Funny he was so like you yet agreed to keep our rules. Something I hardly ever find among you type guys. Truly Sad & esp for people claiming to be academic when it's nothing but bias because you can't produce the evidence I need. Neither could that Engineer as a person that truly understands how in reality things must work & require an ID.
You're entitled. Doesn't make you correct nor does it validate your self perceived academic superiority. My Engineer felt likewise but being honest & true to his commitment to the rules. He is now Eternally grateful.
So be it. Hopefully someday you'll be awakened & motivated to truly research for the frauds put over on you & the bad science of macro evolution. You aren't open now but hopefully someday you will.
I know this had my Engineer been dishonest academically & let his bias so rule him he'd never found the truth as he did. Funny he was so like you yet agreed to keep our rules. Something I hardly ever find among you type guys. Truly Sad & esp for people claiming to be academic when it's nothing but bias because you can't produce the evidence I need. Neither could that Engineer as a person that truly understands how in reality things must work & require an ID.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. it boils down to you being unwilling to have a proper discussion. It is too sad that you refuse to learn even the basics of science. You are trying to refute concepts that are far beyond your understanding. Not due to a lack of intelligence, but due to your unwillingness to learn ever the ABC's of science. All you can do is to wave your hands and declare that evolution is impossible without even the ability to understand even how science is done in the first place.
And no, your "Engineer" did no such thing. It is a shame but you do not understand that you are calling your "Engineer" a liar. If he is real do you think that he will appreciate that?
Yes, but to them God is real from an experiential perception, not a belief system one reasons and imagines to be true. Many can recognize the mythic nature of all beliefs, that they are metaphors pointing to a reality beyond themselves.
That would include the language of science as well. They choose to call whatever that is, "God" because it represents the transcendent, which by definition goes beyond what we think and believe to be true.
That's very different than believing literally the portraits of God in the Bible. They are understood as how men, living within these mythic systems, would think of and portray the transcendent. As such they touch upon these timeless shared truths all humans experience as beings in the world, factoring out cultural artifacts of course.
It seems there is no way to quantify the size of the different camps, and they surely varied over the centuries, but the circular argument of the Bible claiming its own authority about that authority will never hold water.
Your opinion is a very detailed review of the subject that I tend to agree with as I understand it. I have seen the overall difference cast as the difference of faith-based thinking compared to reality-based thinking. A sort of idealism opposed to pragmatism. What you identify as pseudo-modernity fits in with the differences in the way of thinking and brings those into alignment with the practice of fundamentalism cloaking itself in a disguise of modern science and rationality.I hear you. Despite the degree of awareness and knowledge into these things I've amassed over the years, you'd think I'd have lowered my expectations too. But I'm forever the optimist that reason and rationality would prevail in the most obvious of errors, such as reading Genesis as science, only to have the data from my experience with it repeatedly not support that belief of my own. I can understand rationally the reasons why I shouldn't, but emotionally, like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe."
I'll share here the reasons why we shouldn't have that expectation. Coming to terms with that realization is another thing however. The reasons why it doesn't register, and in fact cannot register, is answered in understanding what it being presented through the frameworks of developmental stages. They apply to everyone one of us. We all grow through them, one stage built upon the previous stage, and they all utilize appropriate frameworks or structures of consciousness in order to support that current given stage. They are literally different modes of awareness or consciousness with different types of reasoning. They constitute actual different lived realities, in which we "live and move and have our being".
If we were to understand Modernity as the Age of Reason, or the "Rational' stage, which would include modern science and the tools of modernity applied to things like view on history, literature, comparative religious studies, and so forth, these are beyond what the previous stage in human development had created which was the Mythic stage. In that structure of consciousness, the things of the natural world are perceived to be controlled and influenced by an external force, or a deity of some type. Everything is filtered through that lens, and things that don't support, or fit into that mode of perception, are naturally rejected. We all reject modes of thought which do not make sense given our current mode or stage.
These modes are not consciously seen or recognized by us from the inside, because it is the very set of eyes were are perceiving through. It constitutes our subjective reality. And that applies to the stage of rationality as it does to the mythic stage, or to the magic stage before that, etc.
But here's where it gets interesting and answers why you have such things modern phenomena as the pseudosciences, such as Creationism. Creationism, being birthed by modern Christian Fundamentalists, is an attempt to adopt and utilize the language of Modernity in order to compete against Modernity utilizing it's modes of thoughts. However, it's not truly utilizing them. It's merely adopting or imitating the form. It's not truly rational, but pseudo-rational, or pseudoscientific.
There are a myriad of examples where this can be seen where ideas and insights of the more advanced stages along the line of known human development, which researchers have mapped out with supporting data, such as ego development, cognitive development, faith development, etc. For instance, the mantra "I'm entitled to my opinion" in attempts to elevate their losing arguments to support their claims, is an appeal to postmodernist relativism, as if that means the weight of their beliefs are equal to other more supported beliefs. That is a co-opting of a higher, more sophisticated understanding, misapplied to themselves in making claims without support. You hear Donald Trump do this on a regular basis with "alternative facts" and whatnot.
In order to help to not be confused by seeing things like "science", coming from the Rational stage, or Modernity, developmentalists look not at the type of language being used, but the style in which it is being used. It is the style, which exposes the level or stage of consciouenss holding and using that language. The language and content of postmodernity used by someone at the Mythic stage, will always not align with the postmodern understanding and use of it. Think of the stages as containers or contexts, which change the content to fit the context.
So Creationism then. As you can see, it utilizes the language of Modernity, but from within the container of a mythic-reality. In a mythic-reality, gods and whatnot are perfectly appropriate. Modern science however is not a fit. So its language then, in an attempt to offer an "answer" to modernity, is stolen from Modernity and used to support a Mythic reality. The style of argument you see for instance in a Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate type situation (which is exactly what this thread is), is the former mythic stage of a Ken Ham, trying to validate themselves by using the language of science to make mythic stages "sciencey".
Now, some take this as a "put down" to the mythic stage. But it sincerely is not. We all are at different stages in different areas of our lives. These different areas are mapped out as different lines of development. Examples would be development of morals, kinesthetic abilities, mathematical lines, cognitive, musical, faith development, and more. In all lines of development that follow the same basic stages of growth, which can be called using one model, archaic, to magic, to mythic, to rational, to pluralistic, to integral, and beyond. In some lines, I'm just a child operating at the earlier stages, in others I'm more advanced. This true of all of us. And furthermore, no one skips or bypasses earlier stages.
So to use this understanding to "put others down" is juvenile reasoning, like a 12 year old mocking an 8 year old for being 8. An 8 year old is not a broken 12 year old.
So all that is to provide at the least a larger container in which to hold and consider these things. But coming to terms with them emotionally, where we are simply accepting of a Ken Ham trying to imitate Modern science by putting Velociraptors in the Garden of Eden and explaining the Grand Canyon using the myth of Noah's Flood, does in fact make one want to pull one's hair and scream, "This isn't rational!" The answer is, of course it isn't. The style of argument is mythic, not rational. Ken Ham versus Bill Nye, was a staged debate not about Creationism vs. Science. It was about the Mythic stage trying to be the Rational stage.
That is what fundamentalism is, and why it is modern. It is the mythic stage trying to be respected by its older sibling, the rational stage.
Sorry if this is a little long, but I spend altogether too much time considering these things.
P.S. One other thought to add to this. Why I feel fundamentalism is a dysfunctional aspect of mythic-religion, and is NOT representative of traditional mythic religious stages, is precisely because its focus is on being Modernistic, when it isn't. It degrades the truths and values that mythic religion brings to us as a culture in our evolution.
It's neither really traditional, nor modern. It turns religious sentiment into pseudo-modernity. It's quasi-rationality loses touch with the deeper, metaphoric reality of the mythic symbolism, which is rich and vast in its reach, and lives within all of us (cf. Carl Jung). Fundamentalism is the red-headed step child of traditional mythic religion.
(In many ways it's early mythic, or the transitional magic-mythic stage, trying to be post mythic, or better or more "reasonable" that traditionalist views by being "sciencey").
BTW, all of the above is my opinion, based upon the depths of research and years of personal experience with this. Please note that, also in my signature line below.
A common thread of creationist, anti-science evangelism is the incomprehensibility of many of its practitioners. We can speculate on the causes and which is more prominent, but the result is pretty much always the same.
During my freshman year, I forgot my dumb cane over Christmas and it was sad, but still alive when I got back after three weeks in a dark room with no additional water. But even if the light were not a consideration, the absence of the sun implies temperatures at or below cosmic background temperature. Great for frozen broccoli after harvest, but not for growing it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You went to the website and got that?
Either you can't read, or you are a liar, because you have told a big PHAT lie. Wait... did I spell that right? Phat. Fa... Anyhow it is expected that I won't be able to spell so well, because "our website says 'We hate education"."
Please do not lie. It's not a good thing to do. Professed Christian, or not.
We believe education is very important, okay?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The JW's far trail other religions in education. This is not just opinion It is supported by statistics.:
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ educational and professional deficit | ReligionWatch | An Online Publication of Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion
" The report cites Pew Research figures showing that only 9 percent of Jehovah’s Witnesses get an undergraduate degree, well below the national average of 30.4 percent and the lowest of any faith group. The likely reason for this trend is that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that secular education is spiritually dangerous, reports Luke Vander Ploeg. JW leaders discourage secular education with a video on the Watchtower organization website warning members of the ways higher education can erode religious beliefs and values.
There are countless claims by ex-JW's of how they were discouraged from getting a college education. "
There are countless testimonies of ex-JW's were discouraged from getting a higher education. That indicates a hatred of a general hatred of higher education.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Hmmm
Actually you apparently are correct, from what I have read.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did not know that, but now it seems to make sense why speciation is the replacement mechanism.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/72/2/646.full.pdf
...modern evolutionists have forcefully asserted that the process of natural selection is responsible for both microevolution, or evolution within species, and evolution above the species level, which is also known as macroevolution or transpecific evolution (1). It will be shown In the following discussion that the presence of a largely random process (speciation) between the two levels of evolution decouples them, and that large-scale evolution is guided not by natural selection, but by a separate, though analogous, process.
We now have a wealth of evidence suggesting that the origin and initial diversification of most invertebrate phyla occurred during only a few tens of millions of years (10). The gradualistic model cannot account for such rapid change. Rapid speciation, on the other hand, can easily account for the required rate of diversification.
So according to them, speciation is macro-evolution - above the species level. Okay.
It doesn't matter what name they give their processes, as long as I can see the evidence that verifies it.
See, I willingly admit when I do not know something.
I am not about any agenda. If it can be observed, then I have no problem with it. If it were observed that the moon fell into the sea, then so be it.
Which brings me to what I want to focus on, going forward.
I'm still saying that the idea that all life came from one common ancestor, being a theory is not based on good science. A hypothesis perhaps.
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.
The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.
This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?
So currently, all you have are assumptions and speculations.
The claim that this process which creates hybrids, does not continue to do so, but somehow produces special complex organism. It reads like quite a fantastic fairytale.
[GALLERY=media, 8928]Eva1 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:17 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8929]Eva2 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:17 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8930]Eva3 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8931]Eva4 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8929]Eva2 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:17 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8930]Eva3 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8931]Eva4 by nPeace posted May 25, 2019 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well there is a difference between education and higher education, isn't there?
How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Education?
I have explained my view on that earlier.
I had an education So has millions of others.
Many people don't even have the privilege of any secular education at all, but they learn, and they are not ignorant, but intelligent people.
The best education is available to everyone, and being around people who are great teachers, one can learn anything.
Do you think a person cannot become a good accountant without a graduate degree?
It has been done.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that the concept of life coming from a common ancestor is not testable?