Things mentioned:
Conversation with Dan Sawyer
Creation
Abortion
Science
Rabbit trails (ht to http://www.thejenanddaveshow.com)
Conversation with Brad

Promo for http://www.jtindie.com/ played.

Spiritual Stew: Episode 14 – Anti-Intellectualism is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I wonder who my own theological equivalent rock star would be. I’m not sure. CS Lewis if he were still alive. Maybe N. T. Wright.

Anyway, the two of us met for a beer with some of the folks from the Skeptical Society (might not be the actual group name) and the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics. I got to meet some nice gents and pimp Archangel. We talked briefly about religion in general, music, and idle chit chat. Time was short so we didn’t get into much trouble.

The talk itself was good. We got front row seats which was truly awesome. Dawkins mostly used his time as an opportunity to do some readings from The Greatest Show on Earth. Can’t blame him for that and they were good, informative, and relatively free of cringe-worthy moments. Perhaps the biggest problem I had with what he said was the notion that evolution is as factual as the earth being round. To a point I would agree with that. Evolution as a process happens. I don’t think that can be disputed or at least hasn’t been falsified (yet) and he doesn’t think it ever will be (but he does say it could be which is splitting hairs juuuuust a little I think). What I do take issue with is the notion that that process is what took single celled organisms and made them into people. That’s nowhere near as certain as a round earth in my opinion.

He also made a few statements about religion and indoctrination. He spoke of a geologist that he knows. The man is well educated, apparently highly thought of in his field, and yet he remains a Young Earth Creationist (no I didn’t catch the gents name). According to Dawkins the man even said that even if all of the evidence in the universe pointed to an old Earth (apparently he doesn’t think any of it does) he would still remain a YEC because in his opinion that is what the scripture plainly taught. Dawkins said (and I can’t quote him directly) something like that proved how dangerous indoctrination was. I suppose it’s not possible that the man decided for himself, for good reasons, that scripture was true. I don’t know what those reasons are and I don’t agree with Young Earth folks, but I’m not going to wag the indoctrination finger.

There was a Q&A afterward that wasn’t exactly inspiring. There were a few softballs like “Where do you find the patience to deal with believers?” and the couple of adversarial questions he got were fairly weak. I would have liked to see some folks who really disagreed with him and had what they felt were good reasons to step up. That or a debate would have been feistier.

The true high point of the evening was when we went to a pub after it was all over. I sat and talked with a few of the CAA people about morality, the Decalogue, the Fall, and a brief skim around the problem of evil. There was a moment there when my snark kicked in. A guy sat beside me and once he knew I was a Christian he asked me why I believed in Christ. It’s not a question that I could do justice to quickly, but I figured I would give it a shot.

Before I could get so much as a half dozen words out he started trotting out the whole notion that the Gospels weren’t written until much later and everything was filled in so that he could fulfill prophecies after the fact and oh my gosh if you’d just read this book and be rational and reasonable. Well I slapped my hands on the table and said, “All I have to do is read a BOOK? Why didn’t someone tell me?” Perhaps not my proudest moment. It did give me pause to think about all the times atheists/agnostics have probably been treated the same way, “If you’d only read the Bible/CS Lewis/A Case For Christ you’d see the light!” So that helped me some with perspective.

He didn’t stay much longer but the two folks I did finish out the evening talking to were quite lovely and we had an actual conversation. It was cut short by the lateness of the hour, but I do hope that through the magic of the internets we’ll be able to pick it up again. It was nice sharing a table with a group of people I couldn’t disagree with more on religion (one guy said that “it’s all BS” and he realized this at the age of 14 after preaching in a charismatic church for a year) and for it to remain civil (for the most part) and fascinating. I’m eager to repeat the experience. I think it would be ultra-cool if we could get some of the more even tempered folks from the CAA and the more even tempered folks in my Christian circles and do a pub crawl with a Zoom H4 recorder.

We’ll see if we can make that happen.

Off to See the Wizard is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Young Earth Creationists typically believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and put the Earth/universe at somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years old. Typically they believe that if evolution played any role at all it was minimal. Old Earth Creationists believe in a more figurative/metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and hold that the Earth/universe is somewhere between really freakin’ old and the current number of years held by science to be true. They also hold that evolution is true though perhaps guided by God to some degree.

I’m trying to figure out where I am in all of this, but more on that later.

The answers I got are as follows:

benfraley @spiritualtramp c) Other. Not a ‘fall on my sword’ issue for me. There’s an arguement to make for both sides.

Rasplundjr @spiritualtramp Weird combo creationist evolutionist…. or umm C) Other

madpoet @spiritualtramp b) I think “days” as used in Genesis does not mean 24 hour periods.

squirleywrath @spiritualtramp a

etherius @spiritualtramp Theistic Evolutionist. God wrote the “software” & the material universe is hardware running the program via natural laws.

salguod_net @spiritualtramp I’d say I’m an Old Earth Creationist with Young Earth Sympathies.

Chivalrybean @spiritualtramp I’m going to say A, assuming I understand the terms.

JADEDVisalian @spiritualtramp C wasn’t there (job 38)

odin1eye @spiritualtramp hmmm… Guess I’d probably say young earth. Haven’t studied that aspect enough. If wrong, wouldn’t effect rest belief sys

theOJG @spiritualtramp A. But I lean towards C because of Proverbs 25:2

jasonfaylen @spiritualtramp Not surprisingly, I was raised as an IFB to believe the Creation account found in Genesis, presumeably about 10k yrs ago and so far, I’ve found no reason to change my view.

So that’s five for a young Earth, two solid old Earthers, and three C’s mostly due to positions I myself hold. I also took a poll among the teachers at my church and the answers I got were similarly spread out, though my denomination (Presbyterian) skews toward a young earth it seems.

This whole thing coincided with the beginning of a period of my pastor preaching through the book of Genesis. He started on Sunday with the first two verses of chapter one and we’ll proceed from there.

The interesting thing to me about the intro to the sermon was that Hunter (our pastor) couched the current scientific theories in addition to all of the creation myths out there as various genesis stories (I can hear panties/boxers bunching even as I type these words). I think that there’s some meat there to chew on. He, of course, went on to say that the story we have is the true one (no idea yet as to how literally he’s going to interpret the forthcoming passages), but then isn’t that what everyone believes that has there own genesis story?

“But Scott,” I hear some of you say, “we have science on our side. Surely any rational person would put more trust in that than in the Bronze Age poetry/myth whose origins are questionable at best?” And to a point I might agree with you. The intention of first few chapters of Genesis, in my opinion, was not to establish how old the Earth is or how long it took to come into being. However, I think what this really comes down to can be best talked about in terms that a movie we’re all familiar with uses:

Admiral Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Darth Vader: Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Admiral Motti: Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

No, no, no, this doesn’t reveal my secret desire to Force choke pesky naturalists or even pesky young earthers. Well maybe a little…

Anyway, I think for most people who are naturalists what science tells them about the creation of the universe serves the same purpose as the various religious genesis stories tell religious folks. It gives them a sense of the scope of the universe and an idea that how things got here involves order and forces that most of us frankly don’t comprehend in the slightest. The rest, those on the extreme science-y side and those on the extreme religious-y side are like Motti and Vader, proud of their knowledge and the power that it gives them. Not to mention, at each other’s throats.

I think that seeking the answers about the beginnings of the universe through science alone is admirable and very useful. I think the same about seeking those same answers through religious means. The two schools of thought are frequently going to arrive at different sorts of answers. That’s as it should be given the fact that they are vastly different disciplines, though the answers aren’t always going to be contradictory.

Christians as early as the third century believed that the creation story was less than literal. Believers are and have been involved in science that gives us many of the current theories putting the Earth’s age at 4.54 billion years. Unfortunately there are people who try and shoehorn their religious views into their scientific understanding or perhaps that’s vice versa. I think that’s a mistake. It can lead to bad science and bad religion.

There are also those who look down their noses at the religious among us, holding to our own genesis stories and trying to seek some deeper meaning in the existence of our universe. I think that’s also a mistake. At the very best it keeps folks from even trying to understand your point of view. No one likes to be belittled. You may also be missing some of the deeper discussions that can be had regarding who we are and what our place in the universe is, answers that “hard” science isn’t really set up to provide.

I guess all of that goes to say that I believe that science as it stands gives us a better hint as to how old the universe is. I find it interesting that the number, though large, strives so hard to be precise. I also believe that religion provides some answers about origins. I see an order in the universe that speaks to me of a creator. Christianity tells us what that creator could be (and in my mind is) like. Is that creator “necessary”? That’s a worthy question and one that I don’t think either discipline can provide a clear answer to. It’s those sorts of arguments that I would rather be focusing on.

Creation Stories is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.