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.

 generalgrog wrote:
Do you believe that god "created" or not? if so, you believe in creationism.

GG

Do you believe Herbie is a VW beetle? If so, you believe all cars are VW Beetles...

 generalgrog wrote:
Do you believe that god "created" or not? if so, you believe in creationism.

That's not even rigorous enough to file under false equivalence. Creationists in one way or another conflate their (usually poor understanding of) science with their (usually poor understanding of) theology. This is because Creationism, most broadly speaking, is the ideological position that theological concepts of Creator and Creation are relevant to scientific study of the natural world. When Christians confess that God is the "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible," they are not thereby pledging allegiance to that ideology. Creationism is not a part of Christianity; it is an extra[/non]-religious, pseudo[/non]-scientific ideology that some Christians are forever trying to "smuggle aboard."

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Do you believe that god "created" or not? if so, you believe in creationism.

That's not even rigorous enough to file under false equivalence. Creationists in one way or another conflate their (usually poor understanding of) science with their (usually poor understanding of) theology. This is because Creationism, most broadly speaking, is the ideological position that theological concepts of Creator and Creation are relevant to scientific study of the natural world. When Christians confess that God is the "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible," they are not thereby pledging allegiance to that ideology.

That's real nice summary of what Manchu believes, and of course as usual it's peppered with your vision of theological Superiority.

You might as well have just said..."I'm right because the Vatican told me I'm right."

Bottom, line if you believe that God was involved with creation whatsoever...you are a creationist. If you believe that God used the Big Bang, as Lemarque described, and used billions of years to bring man to where he is now..you are a creationist, if you believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be taken literally, you are a creationist.

In any case..this time, I'm really done, even when your inevitable condescending insulting reply comes next.

GG

Well lets remember your definition, his definition, and my definition may be completely different people and there is no RAW here, so lets be cool and post to each other fairly no?'

When Frazzled is saying "why can't we all just get along" the world has taken a strange turn indeed (getting my new M&P Wednesday via overnight-hurray!!!)

 generalgrog wrote:
You might as well have just said..."I'm right because the Vatican told me I'm right."

This is your response to a post that in no way invokes the Vatican or even Catholicism specifically. This response is clear evidence that you did not understand what you read. So I will rephrase my response since you have handily re-asserted your original point:

 generalgrog wrote:
Bottom, line if you believe that God was involved with creation whatsoever...you are a creationist.

That is incorrect. Creationism is a broad ideology but it is a lot more specific than you are giving it credit for; specifically, it posits that (a certain kind of) theology is relevant to any valid scientific account of the natural world. If creationism was merely a Christian belief about God, like for example the Christian belief that God is loving, then there could be no argument for teaching it in public schools.

 Frazzled wrote:
your definition, his definition, and my definition may be completely different

That's not really the issue here. Anyone who has read GG's posts ITT much less over the last few years can tell that by "creationism" he means something about the factual explanation of the origin of life, that is something about science, rather than general Christian faith in The Father Almighty Maker Of Heaven And Earth.

Now you're just arguing to argue. I'm shocked such a thing is occurring on the internet.

I hate to say it but I may be the only person who doesn't like Bill Nye. On the other hand, I can't stand literal 6 day creationists (unless they're right in which case I believe thoroughly). Can we just throw them both into a pit with a coconut and TRex named Spot and see what happens?

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're just arguing to argue.

No, I am not. I am trying to clarify for folks reading this thread, especially those agnostics or atheists who generally (and not without reason) associate Christianity with ignorance and malevolent politics, that creationism is an ideology external to Christianity. It may be a sacred belief for certain regional conferences of the GOP but it is not a part of Christian faith.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're just arguing to argue.

No, I am not. I am trying to clarify for folks reading this thread, especially those agnostics or atheists who generally (and not without reason) associate Christianity with ignorance and malevolent politics, that creationism is an ideology external to Christianity. It may be a sacred belief for certain regional conferences of the GOP but it is not a part of Christian faith.

Er...not completely. There are several sects/branches/whatever you call it where thats doctrine. I know many evangelicals and Baptists follow that route.

Not mine, and I can easily tell this because there's nothing booze related about it, and if there's no booze, there's no Episcopaleans!!!
I wonder what Eastern Orthodox doctrine is. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Also can we cogitate some more on the proposed Nye/Ham Spot the wonder TRex deathmatch?

Nye: TRexes were meat eaters from 65mm years ago.
Ham: TRexes lived six thousand years ago and ate coconuts.
TRex (pulling a Lord Olivier from Spartacus impression) I like oysters AND snails
Nye/Ham: Gulp.

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no.

Er, yes. We are talking about Christianity as a historical phenomenon here, not merely a set of personal opinions and aesthetic preferences or idiosyncratic customs (whether mine, yours or anyone else's). The fact that some Christians talk about X with a great deal of zeal does not make it a part of Christianity. Following the example of the apostles in Acts, we are talking here about the level of unanimity, a.k.a., the Nicene Creed. To quote it for a third time, all Christians confess that God created the world. But that is not creationism, at least not in the sense that GG or anyone else is actually talking about ITT. Now, some Christians may interpret the Creed to justify creationism but creationism, as a matter of historical fact, has nothing to do with the Creed.

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder what Eastern Orthodox doctrine is.

That depends on what you mean by "doctrine," which means something pretty specific in ecclesiological terms. In that sense, you'll have to study each church as they are autocephalous unlike the Western churches (diocese). Generally speaking, the Eastern tradition is much more skeptical of reason than the West. Leading Western theologians (e.g., Aquinas) have affirmed throughout the ages that faith and reason are entirely and necessarily compatible. This is the tradition that invented the scientific method.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Do you believe that god "created" or not? if so, you believe in creationism.

GG

Do you believe Herbie is a VW beetle? If so, you believe all cars are VW Beetles...

Umm... What? You might want to re-word that because it make no sense whatsoever.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You might want to re-word that because it make no sense whatsoever.

Here's a closer one: "Do you believe that society should be fair? If so, you are a Republican." (To be clear, using "Democrat" would yield the same fallacy.)

EDIT: Scratch that, here's a parallel example of the exact fallacy: "Do you believe the US should remain a republic? If so, you are a Republican."/"Do you believe that the US should remain a democracy? If so you are a Democrat."

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no.

Er, yes. We are talking about Christianity as a historical phenomenon here, not merely a set of personal opinions and aesthetic preferences or idiosyncratic customs (whether mine, yours or anyone else's). The fact that some Christians talk about X with a great deal of zeal does not make it a part of Christianity. Following the example of the apostles in Acts, we are talking here about the level of unanimity, a.k.a., the Nicene Creed. To quote it for a third time, all Christians confess that God created the world. But that is not creationism, at least not in the sense that GG or anyone else is actually talking about ITT. Now, some Christians may interpret the Creed to justify creationism but creationism, as a matter of historical fact, has nothing to do with the Creed.

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder what Eastern Orthodox doctrine is.

That depends on what you mean by "doctrine," which means something pretty specific in ecclesiological terms. In that sense, you'll have to study each church as they are autocephalous unlike the Western churches (diocese). Generally speaking, the Eastern tradition is much more skeptical of reason than the West. Leading Western theologians (e.g., Aquinas) have affirmed throughout the ages that faith and reason are entirely and necessarily compatible. This is the tradition that invented the scientific method.

Considering that was Christian teaching before Darwin I think you're a bit off. Some sects take this literally. Its not a personal "belief" any more then your believing in the Holy Trinity is a personal belief. Do not disaprage other Christians because they may believe differently then you do. They may burn you at the stake for it you heretic you. Note I'm not disagreeing with you on the "can God and evolution exist together" thing. People mistake the painter for the brush.

Anglican, putting the "axe" back in divorce since 1536!

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that was Christian teaching before Darwin I think you're a bit off.

Don't confuse pre-modern cosmologies with modern ones. Creationism is not the same thing as (for example) medieval Christian thought; creationism is a modern ideology. Again, don't uncritically evoke terms. For example, the word industry goes back before there were factories. But when we talk about industrialization, we mean something distinct from what medievals might have been talking about.

 Frazzled wrote:
Do not disaprage other Christians because they may believe differently then you do

I don't disparage any Christians by distinguishing between faith and ideology. I am using the actual meanings of those words. Fact claims about the development of life on earth can never in any sense be a matter of faith. I get that you want to talk about feelings and opinions and that's fine. But that's not what I am doing. I am talking about religion and science.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well lets remember your definition, his definition, and my definition may be completely different people and there is no RAW here, so lets be cool and post to each other fairly no?'

When Frazzled is saying "why can't we all just get along" the world has taken a strange turn indeed (getting my new M&P Wednesday via overnight-hurray!!!)

grats on the mandp... they are awesome little #'s

and yes... some people need to polite-en the heck up

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that was Christian teaching before Darwin I think you're a bit off.

Don't confuse pre-modern cosmologies with modern ones. Creationism is not the same thing as (for example) medieval Christian thought; creationism is a modern ideology. Again, don't uncritically evoke terms. For example, the word industry goes back before there were factories. But when we say the industrialization, we mean something distinct from what medievals might have been talking about.

 Frazzled wrote:
Do not disaprage other Christians because they may believe differently then you do

I don't disparage any Christians by distinguishing between faith and ideology. I get that you want to talk about feelings and opinions and that's fine. But that's not what I am doing. I am talking about religion and science.

Not quite. You're besmirching whatshis face's doctrine (thats not the correct word-limiting? I can't say what I mean properly here) and other creationists as a personal viewpoint. Its not. Its their doctrine. You may disagree with it. I may disagree with it, but thats their doctrine. Attack the merits but not the doctrine.

You can talk about religion and science but you don't get to claim what is doctrine and what isn't for Christians. We aren't one bunch boyo.
EDIT: Now I can understand your frustration when someone with the "literal young earth creation" belief tries to pull everyone who believes in the Great Wienie in as being on their side, when that is gaming the system.

Now lets get back to Spot the lovable TRex and who's he's having over today for dinner.

"To Serve Man...its its a cookbook!"

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well lets remember your definition, his definition, and my definition may be completely different people and there is no RAW here, so lets be cool and post to each other fairly no?'

When Frazzled is saying "why can't we all just get along" the world has taken a strange turn indeed (getting my new M&P Wednesday via overnight-hurray!!!)

grats on the mandp... they are awesome little #'s

and yes... some people need to polite-en the heck up

What is the OT coming to when the " gun guys" are saying people need to chill Further more you know a thread had out lasted its usefulness when you click on the second page and can't tell what it started as, let alone the 4th one.

@Frazzled:

First off, please stop spamming the forum with the t-rex mumbo jumbo.

Moving on: You keep using the word "doctrine" in a very loose sense. It seems to boil down to "personal opinion." Notice that I am not using that word. I am talking about faith.

Factual claims in the sense of science are not the subject of faith. Because creationism attempts to deal with factual claims in the sense of science, it logically cannot be entirely a matter of faith. Creationism, to the extent that it involves faith at all, must therefore be faith plus something else. Christianity, by contrast, is entirely a matter of faith. So creationism, whatever else it might be, is therefore something beyond Christian faith.

This is different from saying that Christians cannot or should not be creationists.

I think most people know that not all Christians are creationists. What surprises me here on Dakka and what I try to correct is the notion that Christianity itself implies creationism. So while posters might understand that some Christians aren't in fact creationists, they seem to attribute as much to those Christians not really taking their faith seriously.

So it is very important to distinguish Christian faith from the ideology of creationism. Think of it as a Venn Diagram. There's a circle for Christianity and a circle for creationism. While there is some overlap between those circles the important thing to keep in mind is that they are separate circles.

First off, please stop spamming the forum with the t-rex mumbo jumbo.

What spam? You do know that TRexes have their peg teeth to break coconuts don't you? Thats like revealed truth for some creationists.

Moving on: You keep using the word "doctrine" in a very loose sense. It seems to mean "personal opinion." Notice that I am not using that word. I am talking about faith.

No I am being very specific. THE DOCTRINE of creation is a literal truth to some sects. You're terming it personal opinion when its not. Its their doctrine. You may not like but too bad. Millions of Baptists and Evangelicals live under that faith.

Factual claims in the sense of science are not the subject of faith.

True dat. And coconuts.

Because creationism attempts to deal with factual claims in the sense of science, it logically cannot be entirely a matter of faith.

Er what? The whole God thing is a matter of Faith. To quote the Vampire "you have to have FAITH"

Creationism, to the extent that it involves faith at all

Yep faith. Also bad science to support the faith, but I'm not arguing the point, or defending the belief.

, must therefore be faith plus something else. Christianity, by contrast, is entirely a matter of faith. So creationism, whatever else it might be, is therefore something beyond Christian faith.

Nah, there's lots of that in Christianity. Purported Relics of the Ark, that sort of thing. Some need that, other just need faith that the Bible is correct.

I think most people know that not all Christians are creationists. What surprises me here on Dakka and what I try to correct is the notion that Christianity itself implies creationism. So while posters might understand that some Christians aren't in fact creationists, they seem to attribute as much to those Christians not really taking their faith seriously.

Fair point. It would be easier to just note that some sects take the Bible literally in this area on a very narrow definition, and Catholics and others don't. On a broader context he's right though in that all Christians believe that God, using tools and the wisdom of wiener dogs, created the universe. Its justa discussion of how, and how long.

So it is very important to distinguish Christian faith from the ideology of creationism. Think of it as a Venn Diagram. There's a circle for Christianity and a circle for creationism. While there is some overlap between those circles the important thing to keep in mind is that they are separate circles.

An interesting view, and potentially a very good one.

I must be a member of a pretty crappy or lazy baptist church, they never bothered to share this doctorine with us. I didn't see it in our articles of faith either...

 Frazzled wrote:
THE DOCTRINE of creation is a literal truth to some sects. You're terming it personal opinion when its not. Its their doctrine.

Without referencing perspective, please explain the distinction you are making between doctrines and opinions.

 Frazzled wrote:

Because creationism attempts to deal with factual claims in the sense of science, it logically cannot be entirely a matter of faith.

Er what? The whole God thing is a matter of Faith.

Creationism does not claim to explain "the whole God thing." It claims to explain how life developed on Earth. It attempts to assert scientific fact claims. Faith does not do that. Therefore, creationism is not a type of faith. QED.

 Frazzled wrote:

Creationism, to the extent that it involves faith at all, must therefore be faith plus something else. Christianity, by contrast, is entirely a matter of faith. So creationism, whatever else it might be, is therefore something beyond Christian faith.

Nah, there's lots of that in Christianity. Purported Relics of the Ark, that sort of thing. Some need that, other just need faith that the Bible is correct.

You must be on a different subject. My point there was that Christianity, as a faith, only makes faith claims and doesn't make scientific fact claims. Creationism does make scientific fact claims and therefore must be something more than faith. As far as relics go, let's distinguish between having faith that the bones of a saint are somehow good to have around on the one hand and the fact claim that such-and-such piece of ancient wood was part of the historical ark of the covenant on the other hand.

 Frazzled wrote:
On a broader context he's right though in that all Christians believe that God created the universe.

That's not at issue. The issue is whether the accepting faith claim that God created the universe is the same thing as creationism. It is not.

 d-usa wrote:
I must be a member of a pretty crappy or lazy baptist church, they never bothered to share this doctorine with us. I didn't see it in our articles of faith either...

The Church of the Great Wienie accepts the laziest of souls...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Without referencing perspective, please explain the distinction you are making between doctrines and opinions.

Doctrine: what you are taught.
Opinion: what you think.

That's not at issue. The issue is whether the accepting faith claim that God created the universe is the same thing as creationism. It is not.

Agreed, in the contextual definition of young earth creationism that you are using.

Creationism does not claim to explain "the whole God thing." It claims to explain how life developed on Earth. It attempts to assert scientific fact claims. Faith does not do that. Therefore, creationism is not a type of faith. QED.

Agreed on that using your definitions here.

 Frazzled wrote:
Doctrine: what you are taught.
Opinion: what you think.

That's not very helpful, F. I mean, I teach you about my opinions (as distinct from my arguments) all the time. I guess my opinions are your doctrine then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The issue is whether the accepting faith claim that God created the universe is the same thing as creationism. It is not.

Agreed, in the contextual definition of young earth creationism that you are using.

The same goes for "old earth" creationism, unless we're not really talking about creationism at all and what we really mean is faith in God as the Creator.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Doctrine: what you are taught.
Opinion: what you think.

That's not very helpful, F. I mean, I teach you about my opinions all the time. I guess my opinions are your doctrine then.

Point - Manchu!


"You win this round, but I hope you don't mind if your shoes are filled with pee."
- TBone the Magnificent, on losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The same goes for "old earth" creationism, unless we're not really talking about creationism at all and what we really mean is faith in God as the Creator.

I think we mean faith in God as the creator. What is "old earth' creationism? I've not heard this before.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we mean faith in God as the creator.

Right, but that's Christianity rather than creationism.

 Frazzled wrote:
What is "old earth' creationism? I've not heard this before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

But if you want a real answer: So basically, old earthers drop the more obviously impossible claims of young earthers and attempt to re-center the debate around exegetic arguments against young earthers rather than science. I think it is an attempt to seem reasonable while still ignoring science. The main issue is that evolution is contingent, meaning that things could have been different from how they are. Creationists, whether old or young earthers, maintain that Creation is the realization of God's blueprint.

 Manchu wrote:
Christianity, by contrast, is entirely a matter of faith.

"Dude died and then came back to life" is a scientific fact claim.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
"Dude died and then came back to life" is a scientific fact claim.

We can be certain that it is not a scientific fact claim. Being able to make such a claim requires modernity. The claim that Jesus died and was resurrected cannot be a scientific fact claim because it precedes modernity. And given that we Christians today explicitly say we are making that claim in continuity with the first Christians, our claim today also cannot be a scientific fact claim.

Please note, I understand that some people have developed a scientistic ideology out of the faith claim that Jesus died and was resurrected. But just like creationism, that too is something beyond Christian faith.

 Manchu wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
"Dude died and then came back to life" is a scientific fact claim.

Being able to make such a claim requires modernity.

We must be using a different definition of "scientific fact claim." My definition would be, I think, that it's a claim that observational data could be taken in support of. Therefore "dude came back to life" and "God created the earth in six days, 6000 years ago" are both scientific fact claims.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
it's a claim that observational data could be taken in support of

Science is not some eternal, omnipresent truth but rather a historically contingent point of view. Even stated in such a simple way, this idea is the product of thousands of years of intellectual development in a historically specific context. (Much like evolution of species in that sense, really.) And the idea, at least the version of it that you and I and our own contemporaries can evoke, simply did not exist when the claim that Jesus died and was resurrected was first made.

 Manchu wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
it's a claim that observational data could be taken in support of

Science is not some eternal, omnipresent truth but rather a historically contingent point of view. Even stated in such a simple way, this idea is the product of thousands of years of intellectual development in a historically specific context. (Much like evolution of species in that sense, really.) And the idea, at least the version of it that you and I and our own contemporaries can evoke, simply did not exist when the claim that Jesus died and was resurrected was first made.

I would say science is the process of making an observation and then drawing a conclusion based on that observation. This is not something that is dependent on cultural context.

I have read over your posts in the thread again and it seems to me that you are saying that Creationists are specifically asserting that certain scientific theories (like, say, ones about radiometric dating) are incorrect and postulating an alternative, whereas the factual claims that Christianity makes in general (e.g. that Jesus rose from the dead or that Yahweh murdered a ton of kids in Egypt) do not directly contradict scientific theories. Is that right?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would say science is the process of making an observation and then drawing a conclusion based on that observation.

Science involves quite a bit more than that. Superstition, after all, is nothing more than drawing conclusions based on observation.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
you are saying that Creationists are specifically asserting that certain scientific theories are incorrect and postulating an alternative, whereas the factual claims that Christianity makes in general do not directly contradict scientific theories. Is that right?

No. I am distinguishing between faith claims and scientific fact claims.