Reason in the Balance and why Fundamentalists are Beyond Reason

sullivan-county.com ^ | Unknown | Lewis Loflin

[kkindt]

The 'reason' used in this diatribe against Christians actually is quite irrational.

First of all the use of the word 'fundamentalist'. Hijacking this word from its historical meaning is typical of those who do not want to enter into a rational debate about what 'fundamentalists' really believe but instead want to make people afraid of what 'fundamentlist' are like.

A 'fundamentalist' is one who believes there are certain fundamental things one must believe in order to be a certain holder of a certain kind of faith. Muslim fundamentalist must believe that there is a god named allah who will reward those who kill his enemies in a holy war. That's a fundamental belief if you want to be a real Muslim.

A 'fundamentalist' CHristian believes there are certain beliefs one must hold to be a real Christian - that amongst these is that the Lord Jesus CHrist was God in the flesh, He suffered and died for our sins, salvation is a gift of God lest any man should boast, the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus, the real physical resurrection as reported in the Scriptures, and that the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God - perhaps reading the fundamentalist manifestos from the early part of this century should be required of those who want to use this label to diatribe against Christians.

http://www.mhsc.ca/index.asp?content=http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/C4798.html

[Kerberos]

Then show us where Satan is. Where does he reside at.
Show us his dog. And his cat. And his monstrous little parakeet.


Guess Dataman must have misplaced his address book.

[william clark]

...because most reasonable Christians (excludes fundamentalists) see the Old Testament as symbolic...

And in the middle is this bit of total nonsense. This could explain why so many people are so sympathetic to Islamic terrorists and their hatred of Israel. Apparently, the entire history of Judaism and Israel is merely symbolic. There's really no such thing as a Jew or a city named Jerusalem. The Wailing Wall is just a bunch of stones, because there was never anyone named Solomon who built a temple. Sure puts an interesting spin on the Holocaust, doesn't it?

No, this guy has a bone to pick, and has used the same type of shoddy argumentation that he accuses fundamentalists of (and which, admittedly, many are actually guilty of). There's no middle ground for anyone to believe that science, while a crucial and valid discipline, has limits and is well-served by retaining a significant dose of humility as to what it does and does not, can and cannot, know with absolute certainty. It may be argued, in fact, that only philosophical matters can be issues of certainty, as science is forced to rethink from time-to-time just about everything it thinks it knows; whereas principles of logic are the kind of constant every scientist looks for. Presupposing one's conclusion violates the first rule of both fields of thought.

[taxesareforever]

Michael,
I am sorry to hear about your loss. Seems like we face more of these situations in this day and age than we had ever thought possible.
I appreciate the discussion that we have had. You are right when you say that I cannot be convinced to believe in evolution. If I did my whole Christian faith would be open to doubt. Also, you say that you cannot be convinced of a creation by God. You are right that I cannot convince you of that, because only the Holy Spirit can do that. I can plant a seed but after that it is God who works the harvest.
Take care and maybe we will find other things to discuss in this site.
Dave

[taxesareforever]

One other thought that I have on this subject. God does not use days, years, months and seasons. These were established for man. God is from and to eternity where there is no hours, days, months or years. God has no need for time as we know it. His time is without beginning and without end. There is no such thing as God days, months, years. Only humans use these.

[PatrickHenry]

You are right when you say that I cannot be convinced to believe in evolution. If I did my whole Christian faith would be open to doubt.

Permit me to jump in here. I don't want to convince you of anything. But I can see that you are sincere, and it bothers me to see someone who thinks his religion actually depends on a flat-out rejection of a well-established scientific theory. I don't think a choice like that is good for science or religion, so I'd like to give you what may be a new way to think about the issue. The Pope (I know, I know -- his views are only of interest to Catholics) has recently published his view of the matter, and it's at least worth considering how he approaches the problem. He makes a distinction between the body (which he concedes may have evolved) and the spirit, which is from God. He also speaks about the need to keep religion in sync with the discoveries of science. (He mentions the problem the church had in the early 1600s with Galileo and the solar system, and it seems he doesn't want to get into another squabble like that one.) Anyway, just read it over -- it probably needs to be read more than once -- and think about it:
Message from the Pope, 1996.

[Kerberos]

"There's no middle ground for anyone to believe that science, while a crucial and valid discipline, has limits and is well-served by retaining a significant dose of humility as to what it does and does not, can and cannot, know with absolute certainty. "

I don't know how you came up with this conclusion from the author, as that is not how I read it. And I hear all of this talk around here that scientist think they are God and I very seldom find that in the bio's of scientist I have read about.

[SuziQ]

There is no such thing as God days, months, years. Only humans use these.

That's why I've never held Him to a human literal notion of creation in 6 days.

[js1138]

PHlacemarker

[william clark]

It's the logical inference of the author's ad hominem aside that I cited. You're either "reasonable" and think that the "Old Testament is symbolic" or, if you believe that the bulk of it is legitimate history, you're considered an unreasonable fundamentalist who has no regard for science.

[Kerberos]

"if you believe that the bulk of it is legitimate history, you're considered an unreasonable fundamentalist "

Well sure I can understand that. There may be some things in it that are historically accurate, but when one starts contending that the creation story is how the world actually began, then are they not only unreasonable, they’re an idiot.

[Kerberos]

A sampling of some ignorant, reason-deficient Christian fundamentalists:

Yeah, here's a little blurp I found on Copernicus:

The discovery of the New World (rediscovery actually) would finally put an end to the Biblical flat earth once and for all. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1573) would abandon the Christian idea of forcing the facts to fit the Bible and let the facts stand for themselves. He shattered the Christian fundamentalist belief by proving the sun center of the solar system, not the earth with mathematics. His disciple Galileo (1564-1642) invented the telescope and proved the earth circled the sun, moons circled Jupiter, etc. The Christian fundamentalist view of heaven evaporated. (Galileo was forced to recant under death threats, the Catholic Church finally apologized and accepted his findings in 1991.) Religious dogma would never recover.

As I recall Newton wasn't real thrilled with Christian dogma either, but realized it was best to go along so that he didn't end up toast. But I'll have to find some current writings on that.

[taxesareforever]

You are not getting my point. God only refers to days in a human sense since days don't have meaning for him. He created the earth in 6 days. 144 hours and 0 minutes.

[william clark]

Thanks for offering such a clear example of what I mean by the all-too-frequent lack of humility among those who consider themselves scientists. You only allow for "some things" to be factual; whereas, unlike ancient myths from other cultures, the Old Testament bends over backwards to connect itself with actual events, people and places (or are we to assume that the lengthy geneaologies and precise measurements of Solomon's temple are to be taken as some sort of incredibly boring spiritual metaphors or lessons?). On the other hand, you don't have any personal accounts of Icarus' misadventure with gravity laid down by his next-door neighbor. Not to mention, you've just dismissed a huge amount of archaeological evidence.

I, on the one hand, can allow that some aspects of the Genesis account may be symbolic. Still, knowing the fallibility of human scientists, so often correcting their "absolute" facts, combined with the stack of presuppositions and circular arguments used to dismiss the idea of a creator, and the contradictions present in the various evidences, I am quite comfortable believing that the account may be taken at face value. The God I believe in is quite capable of it, and frankly seems to have a much better track record. Furthermore, my ego is not so large as to need to feel that the human being is the end-all, be-all of intellect and personality present in the universe. Sadly, that need seems to drive many who argue against a Genesis-type creation into the trap of presuppositions. Consequently, they (and, clearly, you) cannot bring yourself to be as open to an alternate theory as I am.

[Skooz]

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1573) would abandon the Christian idea of forcing the facts to fit the Bible and let the facts stand for themselves. He shattered the Christian fundamentalist belief by proving the sun center of the solar system, not the earth with mathematics.

Nonsense. The geocentric theory was accepted scientific fact since the time of Ptolemy, before Christ was even born. He "abandoned" no Christian ideas and remained a faithful Christian all of his life.

Your statement about Galileo is also nonsense. The Catholic Church employed many astronomers, several of whom concluded the very same findings as Galileo. The Church persecuted Galileo not because of his discoveries, but in his insistence on spreading the news before the Church thought the masses were ready. Not an entirely progressive position to be sure, but to say that "The Christian fundamentalist view of heaven evaporated" is ludicrous and demonstrates a chronic lack of historical knowledge.

As I recall Newton wasn't real thrilled with Christian dogma either...

You recall wrong. Newton remained a deeply commited Christian for his entire life.

It is obvious you just have a twisted view of Christianity and it clouds your judgement. You are so consumed with hate that you have to make things up about those of whom you have no knowlege whatsoever.

[Virginia-American]

That's life, one persons whacked out views can be another persons religion.

From Heinlein's "Notebooks of Lazarus Long", part of "Time Enough for Love"

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."

[Kerberos]

"The Christian fundamentalist view of heaven evaporated" is ludicrous and demonstrates a chronic lack of historical knowledge."

Yeah I know it's all revisionist history, most probably the work of Satan. Amazing how they got it in all the history books through.

[Kerberos]

"It is obvious you just have a twisted view of Christianity and it clouds your judgement. You are so consumed with hate that you have to make things up about those of whom you have no knowlege whatsoever."

ROTFLMAO............You guys are just too good sometime.

[Virginia-American]

I think that in 100 years, if we are still here, the theory of evolution, will be considered an archaic theory of the 20th century. There is so little proof of any of it It goes against the one of the fundamental laws of physics, that is all matter tends toward disorder

Isn't the tendency toward disorder violated by life itself? A living organism maintains a non-equlibrium order; but as soon as it dies, it starts to lose that order and tends to disorder.

My point being, why does the 2nd law (at least in anti-evo circles) only apply to evolution; doesn't every living thing violate it?

(Of course neither one violates the 2nd law; and I know why)

[Virginia-American]

there was no survival of the fittest, that's dispelled

Really? Could you please post a citation or two?