3 ms·

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.

defrost 3y ago
> because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  Several? There’s Judaism and Christianity. There’s also Islam which came later, whose scriptures contradict with canonical Christian texts. Islam also exhibits religious deviation from ethnic bias. Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
  - defrost 3y ago
    Pretty sure most of Utah feels slighted by your comment. When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ... https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religions https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religi... You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs. It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library. The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom. It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library
    - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
      I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination. Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism. They are obviously not Abrahamic. If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion. It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point. It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
      - jowea 3y ago
        There are some Christians who don't recognize Mormonism or some other groups that call themselves Christian as Christians due to theological differences, mainly about the Trinity IIRC. As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and includes Judaism and Christianity but not any other?
        andrewmcwatters 3y ago
        I’m telling you that there are subjects that you should prefer domain-specific reading to in contrast to obtaining all of your information from Wikipedia. Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities. In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway. In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not? This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out. You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.
jowea 3y ago
Depending on how the specific questions are asked there's 18% to 39% of survey respondents with some sort of young earth creationist beliefs.[0][1] That's tens of millions of people in the most powerful country in the world. And American Evangelicals seem to be doing quite a bit of evangelizing around the world. [0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-about-human-evolution-year-darwin https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolution-of-pew-research-centers-survey-questions-about-the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...
lgvln 3y ago
There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
  - lgvln 3y ago
    This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.
      - lgvln 3y ago
        Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?

defrost 3y ago

> because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.

andrewmcwatters 3y ago
Several? There’s Judaism and Christianity. There’s also Islam which came later, whose scriptures contradict with canonical Christian texts. Islam also exhibits religious deviation from ethnic bias. Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
- defrost 3y ago
  Pretty sure most of Utah feels slighted by your comment. When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ... https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religions https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religi... You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs. It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library. The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom. It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library
  - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
    I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination. Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism. They are obviously not Abrahamic. If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion. It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point. It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
    - jowea 3y ago
      There are some Christians who don't recognize Mormonism or some other groups that call themselves Christian as Christians due to theological differences, mainly about the Trinity IIRC. As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and includes Judaism and Christianity but not any other?
      - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
        I’m telling you that there are subjects that you should prefer domain-specific reading to in contrast to obtaining all of your information from Wikipedia. Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities. In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway. In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not? This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out. You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.

jowea 3y ago

Depending on how the specific questions are asked there's 18% to 39% of survey respondents with some sort of young earth creationist beliefs.[0][1] That's tens of millions of people in the most powerful country in the world. And American Evangelicals seem to be doing quite a bit of evangelizing around the world. [0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-about-human-evolution-year-darwin https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolution-of-pew-research-centers-survey-questions-about-the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...

lgvln 3y ago

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
- lgvln 3y ago
  This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.
    - lgvln 3y ago
      Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?