Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nkelsch wrote:
I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start?

If you want the short version, in the US it became big with the Fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century. A direct Christian reaction to shifting social values concerning science and the increasing criticism (good and bad mind you) of Christianity, its beliefs, and Biblical texts in particular. Prior to the 19th century, it was pretty taboo to openly question the Bible as truth, but generally that truth was 'vague.' It wasn't challenged, so no one ever felt the need to be 'literal' about its contents in this sense. It was mostly confined to small academic circles.

Once it was challenged it was probably inevitable that a group of Christians would pop up and respond to that challenge by taking a literalist approach to Biblical texts, especially in an era where Textual Criticism was in its infancy and traditions associated with the Bible and the books there in were infallible for many believers.

While Prodestants do believe for the most part in the new testament being literal, there is no foundation for old testament literalisims in the Protestant 'tree'.

It's not really a Protestant thing. You'll also find 'literalists' among Catholics and Orthodox Christians. By virtue of those branches age and organization, though it tends to be more common with Protestants, not because Protestants are more likely to be literalist per se but rather that there isn't much room for literalism of that variety in the other two major branches. Of course we've covered the 'liberalism' of the typical Catholic many times on these boards.

It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.

 LordofHats wrote:
You'll also find 'literalists' among Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

While some Catholics might privately be literalists, literalism itself is contrary to Catholic tradition.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?

I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?

An excellent question. Everyone of every faith (even the Pope, since apparently he's some kind of paragon of faith) has at some point doubted their beliefs. For some that doubt overcomes them and they decide to believe otherwise. For others, they contemplate their doubt, and based on what they know and how strongly they feel about the situation, their faith continues(and is often stronger).

I'm quite stubborn. There have been perhaps 2 or 3 times in my life that truly made me doubt something I believed in.

I have absolute faith that what I believe is true. Can I prove it scientifically? No. Do I feel the need to try and force you to agree with me? Not at all. Would I prefer you agreed with me? Of course.

I have never understood people who insult as a means to get people to agree with them. If you disagree with me, fine. Let's disagree and move on to some other topic of conversation. I've dropped a few friends over the years because they refuse to stop bringing up topics that they know I disagree with them on, I've even stopped talking with family members over it. It's not that I like them less as people, but it's behavior that really doesn't need to be happening among friends.

Sadly, there are fanatics for EVERYTHING. Be it science, faith, music, or goblins. And those fanatics claim a title like "Christian(see Westboro Baptist)" where nearly 100% of people who identify as Christian do not agree with the fanatics. And sadly again, those fanatics tend to get a ton of media exposure, because the media cares more about reporting bad news than it does good news.

I'll continue ranting later, my son insists that I clip his nails at this exact moment.

 LordofHats wrote:


If you want the short version, in the US it became big with the Fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.

So it is basically a US reaction to Rock and Roll and 'them dag nabbit youngins'. No wonder I have hardly ever seen any evidence of it in actual churches. Asking a priest/pastor about his/churches opinion on the source of the old testament is my default question and is a good source of discussion for biblical scholars. (I have family who were Theolgoists in the catholic church)

I find a helluva lot of religious people seem to have almost no real understanding from a historical context of the period of time between Moses and Jesus.

The difference is that maths "works" whether you believe in it or not, while acupuncture works because you believe in it.

That doesn't mean that acupuncture cannot be beneficial, however antibiotics work if administered to someone who is unconscious, which acupuncture wouldn't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.

This is an important fact. If you were to prove evolution 100% how would affect daily life? Now how about if you disproved it?

I don't see either scenario as changing how I go about my day. It would likely change what I believe in certain aspects(proving evolution still doesn't disprove God for example, there are plenty of evolutionary Christians), but it would hardly shatter my everyday life.

 Aerethan wrote:

My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.

Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]

But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?

If evolution was disproved it would certainly have an effect on medicine and vaccines.

I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.

That of course does not "prove" evolution.

nkelsch wrote:
So it is basically a US reaction to Rock and Roll and 'them dag nabbit youngins'.

Not really. As I hinted above, literalism came about because of the developing scientific -- or rather scientistic -- approach to truth, where only what can be materially demonstrated has any claim to truth. Faced with the idea that only what is literal can be true, some Christians began to insist that everything in the Bible that can be interpreted literally must be interpreted literally.

This development was largely unknown in Catholicism because Catholic tradition has never accepted the materialist notion of truth.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.

Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]

But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?

The concept of black boxes is basically this: You need to know what is in box A. Once you open box A you find that it contained 1 piece of useful information that isn't enough to use by itself, along with 2 new boxes ad infinitum. Every new discover brings with it more questions than it answers(perhaps not EVERY discovery, but certainly most). The two questions that every answer spawns of course are why and how. Why does X do whatever it does. Then how does X accomplish said task. And that second part ends up spawning answers that repeat the same questions. Even at the subatomic level we have the questions on why things interact they way they do and how they do so.

Now generally these questions are only interesting to critical thinkers: people who need to know how something works and why. Sometimes those same people are capable of using that knowledge towards a new goal(engineers mostly), but then there are plenty of people who want that information simply to speculate and eventually learn the next step in the process(theoretical sciences).

There are certain things that existed for years in theory. It was shown on paper that X could exist in all reality even though it did not exist at all at the time. Then years later some engineers work out how to create X using modern techniques, and a theoretical X becomes a physical X.

An example is Graphene. It's structure as a material was solved on paper in 1916, but it wasn't until 2004 that it was isolated physically into what it truly is: a 1 atom thick hexagonal lattice of carbon.

And we are only now starting to see practical implications for the stuff(it's amazing by every stretch of the imagination and could very well revolutionize many industries and products).

I've lost myself on this tangent. Basically, answers beget more questions.

 Manchu wrote:
Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.

I really..really tried to stay out of this thread...And then I read the above. I even passed it by, and read to the end of the thread..but it just kept eating at me, because it was so insulting.

I actually believe the opposite... that it is quite narrow and quite frankly a "sell out" to suggest that God resorted to billions of years of evolution to bring about the pinnacle of His creation...humanity. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with old earth creation belief. You have to do some serious bible twisting(2 Peter 3:8-9 for example) to make it fit into a modern scientific old earth view. Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".

Aren't you selling God short by not allowing the Miraculous?

And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"


GG

Or not, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.

The problem is when our policy makers, specifically the ones dealing with science, technology, and medicine, end up having beliefs that go against proven, scientific methods. At that point, they can end up causing a lot of harm.

I have a problem with creationists due to their constant drive to push creationism into the science class room. It's not about right or wrong but an attempt to teach superstition as science alongside genuine scientific theory.

Teach creationism all you want and preach it in chrurch if you wish but keep it out of science classrooms.

Also you don't get atheists knocking on doors telling people to stop believing. You also don't get them standing In Town centres shouting that you will not go to heaven. So it's somewhat ironic that you say don't worry an atheist will tell you while not noting that a religous person will also.

 carlos13th wrote:
I have a problem with creationists due to their constant drive to push creationism into the science class room. It's not about right or wrong but an attempt to teach superstition as science alongside genuine scientific theory.

Teach creationism all you want and preach it in chrurch if you wish but keep it out of science classrooms.

This is also an issue. It's not a matter of 'alternate points of view,' it's a matter of people attempting to institute something which is patently wrong and entirely scientifically unfounded into the classroom.

Also when people talk about teaching them both they forget that one has a lot going for it in terms of evidence and the other just doesn't. Let's not pretend that is not the case for the sake of balanced. Not every issue is balanced and we shouldn't pretend it is.

 carlos13th wrote:
Also when people talk about teaching them both they forget that one has a lot going for it in terms of evidence and the other just doesn't.

I think the most fair thing to do is treat every side as if it had equal merits.

 Polonius wrote:
This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.

The guy who runs Fark put out a book that, frankly, I think is a must-read. It explores the many ways in which the media is essentially broken and why that generally is so (in his opinion, it's actually laziness). Anyway there is a whole chapter divided into what he calls "seasonal articles" which crop up regularly - usually around the holidays because news desks don't like to work on holidays any more than we do.

 generalgrog wrote:
Aren't you selling God short by not allowing the Miraculous?

Why would God create a universe with intricate physical laws and then break all of them?

Also, what you seem to mean by "miraculous" (i.e., magic) is not the only definition.

 generalgrog wrote:

And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"


GG

Indeed... Though I have to say that my eyes have really been opened by aseries of books I have been reading recently... there is plenty of evidence to back up that they are true... the book talks of a great wall in the north protecting mankind from the evil creatures that live in the frozen wastes beyond... and we know Hadrians walland scotland exist so it must all be true!

Cling not to the false dogma and indoctrination of the old false gods and so called science and sing the song of ice and fire!

 generalgrog wrote:
Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".

Sure it is. It is narrow because it insists that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe must act like a human being who has little understanding of science but a well-developed conspiracy theory complex.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".

Sure it is. It is narrow because it insists that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe must act like a human being with little understanding of science.

Wait... isn't that contradictory?

Isn't an "omnicient, omnipotent creator" by definitions understands the science?

Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.

Ah... gotcha.

Carry on.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Aren't you selling God short by not allowing the Miraculous?

Why would God create a universe with intricate physical laws and then break all of them?

You mean like, manifesting Himself as a human being on earth to be born of a virgin? You mean like that incarnation feeding 5,000? you mean that incarnation dying, and rising from the dead 3 days later? You mean those fundamental facets of Christian doctrine/orthodoxy?

Those kinds of breaking of physical laws? If He can do those things, and it's my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that He did, why is it such a "narrow" stretch to believe in a young earth?

I don't think you meant to imply that God performs no miracles?

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.

As opposed to fundamentalist Roman Catholics who want to treat anyone that disagrees with their philosophy with contempt? Really... to critique "fundamentalist" Christians as being hostile toward science is quite hypocritical as RC fundies cling tightly to their churches tradition, as though it were the only Universal truth.

GG






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"


GG

Indeed... Though I have to say that my eyes have really been opened by aseries of books I have been reading recently... there is plenty of evidence to back up that they are true... the book talks of a great wall in the north protecting mankind from the evil creatures that live in the frozen wastes beyond... and we know Hadrians walland scotland exist so it must all be true!

Cling not to the false dogma and indoctrination of the old false gods and so called science and sing the song of ice and fire!

Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?

GG

It is pretty hostile to science to ignore huge chunks of science in order to hand wave through some fiction from a book cobbled together from the collective writings of a bunch of people a couple of thousand years ago, most of which is cobbled together from older myths, legends and religious works from the area.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a concept that's similar to a zero in mathematics. In other words, it's a symbol that denies the absence of meaning, the meaning that's necessitated by the delineation of one system from another. In analog, that's God. In digital, it's zero.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.

Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]

But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?

The concept of black boxes is basically this: You need to know what is in box A. Once you open box A you find that it contained 1 piece of useful information that isn't enough to use by itself, along with 2 new boxes ad infinitum. Every new discover brings with it more questions than it answers(perhaps not EVERY discovery, but certainly most). The two questions that every answer spawns of course are why and how. Why does X do whatever it does. Then how does X accomplish said task. And that second part ends up spawning answers that repeat the same questions. Even at the subatomic level we have the questions on why things interact they way they do and how they do so.

Now generally these questions are only interesting to critical thinkers: people who need to know how something works and why. Sometimes those same people are capable of using that knowledge towards a new goal(engineers mostly), but then there are plenty of people who want that information simply to speculate and eventually learn the next step in the process(theoretical sciences).

There are certain things that existed for years in theory. It was shown on paper that X could exist in all reality even though it did not exist at all at the time. Then years later some engineers work out how to create X using modern techniques, and a theoretical X becomes a physical X.

An example is Graphene. It's structure as a material was solved on paper in 1916, but it wasn't until 2004 that it was isolated physically into what it truly is: a 1 atom thick hexagonal lattice of carbon.

And we are only now starting to see practical implications for the stuff(it's amazing by every stretch of the imagination and could very well revolutionize many industries and products).

I've lost myself on this tangent. Basically, answers beget more questions.

Do you have proof that this is actually the case? I mean, it's perfectly believable that science could be an endless task, but then again, it strikes me just as believable that we simply couldn't tell how much we've really advanced since the beginning of the scientific endeavour, and even before that (because knowledge acquisition isn't remotely stricly scientific). I mean, in the end, a validated hypothesis is nothing more than a langage proposition about a fact that is held to be true.

And logically, the number of meaningful propositions is limited by the combination of the number of facts and of the positions possibly taken on those facts. As we validate ''The most common phase transition to ice occurs when liquid water is cooled below 0°C (273.15K, 32°F) at standard atmospheric pressure.'', we take one proposition from the ''hypothesis'' categorie and we put it in the ''supported'' categorie. This might in turn unveil a few propositions which we didn't care about before in the ''meaningful proposition'' category, and then we move those we think valid into ''hypothesis''.

We know what's in ''hypothesis''. We tend to have a vulgar understanding of what's in ''supported''. There's no saying how vast the pool of facts to examine is, even less how many meaningful propositions we have to go through to finally pick those which are relevant. But that doesn't suggest in the least that this 'pool' is boundless. We have simply no way of knowing. But given that, in the 116 generations since the birth of logic, we've passed from uncovering the syllogism to programming quantum-computed sudokus, I think we should suppose that there is such a thing as progress. We just have a very bad position to evaluate it.

 generalgrog wrote:

Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?

GG

That is the great thing about science, as we learn more about the universe, we incorporate that advancement into how we explain the universe. Things that dont fit the observations are altered so they explain what is seen or new explanations are developed and tested to make sure they explain what is observed as accurately as possible. And the great thing is all this is published and reviewed and testable and repeatable.

The exact reverse of religion, especially fundamentalist sects which warp the world to fit what they want it to be.