Here in the UK, in the light of the "initiatives" of Dr Dawkins, we have a breed of people I call "New Atheists" and/or "Atheist Footsoldiers". Whereas Dawkins is educated and plausible (and has even called himself a "cultural Anglican", I gather), many of his followers are not. And they are sneering and aggressive. But they have problems. Atheism is simply not believing in God. Yet they try to claim solidarity: "we atheists". They also try to equate themselves with scientists, and get uncomfortable when I tell them that the congregation at our church includes a vet, a medical doctor, various engineers and a metallurgist. They also have problems with Anglicans. Creationists are a fairly soft target for them. RCs are tougher, but are portrayed as blinkered and dogmatic. But wishy washy Anglicans? I take the line, "I don't know: and neither do you". You see I think many of these vaunted atheists are really agnostic, but that's fallen out of fashion, so they've given themselves a label they don't really understand. As for "Humanists", well, the impression I get is that they're struggling to find an agenda and, for want of a better word, a "creed".
I both despair of and sympathize with the "New Atheists" -- I bolted from my childhood sect of Pentecostalism in 2006, right when the "Four Horsemen" were beginning to publish their books. Dawkins' own came out in October of that year, as I recall. Naturally I rallied to them. They sought to end the abuses of religious organizations, and to free minds to seek out the truth. That was all very well, but even before I had my own spiritual awakening I tired of the fact that they were one-issue ideologues. Within a year or so of joining their ranks, I decided there were bigger enemies to find, like consumerism and materialism. In the United States, without George Bush to rally against, they seem to be attacking one another now, over feminism, and doing so with all the vigorous rage they once aimed at him. I have more hope for humanism, which in its modern form is the assertion that ethics and morals are rooted in our own nature, and can be used with reason (wisdom would be better) to fashion systems that serve our needs. I think humanist morality superior to obedient morality on principle: doing things just because we're told to do them is a perilous path. It has not served the people of Germany, Russia, Japan, or China well in the 20th century. Unfortunately, humanism is still strongly marked by the one false dichotomy of Science vs. religion. But modern secular humanism is only one twig of humanistic thought: that goes all the way back to the classical world at least -- to humanitas, that sense of culivating the best of human nature and civilisation..
I think because they believe in some things that are easily falsifiable, such as human co-existence with dinosaurs. One of the problems with the Dawkins approach is that when they go after creationists or other easily refuted nonsensical ideas, they then decide that that the group they've been successful at refuting represents all religious people. The version of Christianity espoused by many atheists seems to me to be that of a 10 year old. Where they pray to make deals with God, and have simple views of how God has been with us in the world. I can refute a 10 year type of view also. So their refutation of religion doesn't mean much at all, except that both they and I have decided the 10 year old's view of God doesn't stand up. They are also enabled by people who are genuinely and reasonably religious deciding to take on arguments that they are ill equipped to handle, such as evolution. The error is taking on an argument about science when the topic is religion and life's meaning. Which science is ill equipped to handle. (I should note that evolution is rather obviously the right explanation for life in its many forms being on the planet and that the grandeur in this view of life enhances rather than diminishes religious faith. Well it does for me.)
I am a creationist, meaning that I believe the biblical accounts of the formation of the physical universe to be literally true insofar as they give us information on the subject. I don't think it is any easier to falsify than noncreationist ideas. People fall victim to atheistic arguments because they are ambivalent in their faith in the bible. Either it is the word of God containing all truth or it isn't. What is funny to me is that science is a philosophy based on skepticism while Christianity is a worldview based on faith, yet our society has swapped the two so that most modern people take any claim by a "scientist" as gospel truth but require that every claim by a theologian has to undergo the most rigorous of investigation and debate, if it is not dissmissed out of hand as complete quackery.
It is the 7 days of creation and related things and the order in which life emerges in one of Genesis accounts that is the easy target. It isn't true in the factual, data driven manner. It is true in the allegorical, metaphorical and aesthetic sense only. I'm not a fan of popes per say, but John Paul II has it right in http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM, where he writes, among other things: Which shows he understood how science works, unlike at least the literalist and young earth creation set.
i find your comments condescending and, whats that word you use so much...offensive. being a creationist does nor mean i don't understand science.
I can't bend facts to feelings. Evolution, for what ever reason has been the mechanism with which all forms of life have been created. If your view of creation doesn't contain evolution then it doesn't sit. We can discuss mechanisms of evolution and how it operates, but we cannot pretend it is not factual. Just as much as we cannot pretend plate tectonics and sea floor spreading are not factual, or how planets and stars form, or the age of the universe. There is in most scientists view, when they are also Christian, more grandeur and wonder in this view of the universe and life than in the allegory within the bible. And there is no conflict between science and religion. I might ask if you gave any time to the JP2 opinion on this.
In England we have a phrase "own goal": giving a goal to the opposition. Since creationists are arguing in favour of something that has been scientifically disproved, that plays into the hands of the atheists and brings Christianity into disrepute. At our church we had a working party of eight, including three with university science degrees. They came out unanimously against creationism, not least on the grounds that it is disproved by geology and genetic studies. I dare say that there are Anglican creationists, but I have yet to meet one.
Before I even start, I think I'll begin with advoking Saint Albert of Cologne to pray for all of us, lol. He is the patron saint of scientists and science, and was a Christian philosopher par excellence, with treatises on music, the world of nature, logic and minerology are a few of his high accomplishments. O GOD, who didst make the Bishop Saint Albert great by his joining of human wisdom to divine faith: Grant, we pray, that we may so adhere to the truths he taught, that through progress in learning we may come to a deeper knowledge and love of thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Saint Albert of Cologne, professor and scientist, pray for us! Now, I feel that a lot of atheists who become so tend to be aggressive, militant, rude, or what have you, because they felt like they have been duped in their pre-atheism. It took me a while to realise that (because although I am an agnostic theist, I am also a religionist [and religious humanist], and a mere mention of that gets their imaginations going on what bullcrock I could possibly believe in). Many of these new atheists have been raised in fundamentalist homes, or have experienced negative aspects of religious life from others. Alongside the whole movement of the Four Horsemen of atheism, it is not a surprise that many latch onto that fervour. Conversely, I know a few people who were raised in atheist or non-theistic homes, and they tend to be much mellower. They see themselves as interested in learning about religion academically or scholastically, and see its negativities and benefits in a more neutral stance. It is rather unfortunate to see so many people absolutely rude to both progressive, rational-thinking religionists and the fundamentalists, lumping us all together in some evil construction called 'religion'. When I tell them the dictionary understanding of 'religion' which is the veneration or worship of a belief, deity, culture, or value, and then tell them that the concept of religion has always been dynamic and not subject to a single stagnant definition, I get scoffed. It is an unfortunate thing, but as the Qur'an says, I just 'leave them to their cavilings'. I would rather be trying to volunteer my time to do charity rather than debate on something that is supposed to be personal in the first place. But then again, Canadian culture tends to be a 'religion or non-religion is personal and your own thing'; I feel terribly sorry for the much louder culture of Americans that have such polarised and public expressions of faith (or lack thereof).
Amen. Right now in Christianity liberal ideas are becoming fashionable and against what was always believed someday people will laugh at us because we have faith and these will be "christians" who will be doing the laughing
i just dont understand why the miracle of creation is any harder to swallow than the miracle of the incarnation, or resurrection, or ascension, any harder to believe than the regenerative powers of baptism, or Christ's real presence in the eucharist. What makes the creation miracle "allegorical" and these others literal? All of them alike defy modern science's undestandings of reality. If man's fall was merely allegorical then why did Christ die a literal death on the cross to pay for the consequences of that fall? if there was no old Adam, then how can Our Lord be the New Adam? Without the biblical creation, the whole scheme becomes logically inconsistent. Lux implied christians who reject creation are "rational-thinking" and that fundamentalists (a group that she apparently lumps all creationists into) are not, but without the linchpin of biblical creation, Christianity makes absolutely no sense, which makes non-creationist Christians completely irrational imho.
Data. The fossil record. The history of glaciation. The change within active and inactive DNA. All of the transitional forms we see preserved. The good sequence of evolution we see from the data. All of this and more. When creationism strays into areas we know the facts about, to retain the false belief is to be contrary to the truth. Young earth creationists are few in Canada, which seems to be a USA phenomena. As is 'intelligent design' which is a soft-sell of creationism.
"Either it is the word of God containing all truth or it isn't". Then, as I've mentioned elsewhere, you could say that Jesus was/is literally a grapevine and you are a sheep. Do you say this? By the way, do creationists believe in transubstantiation?
Well, that's fine, but I believe that the RCs accept that if you do a chemical analysis of the sacrament it is still bread and wine, not flesh and blood. And the wine remains alcoholic. And you have not addressed my first two points (grapevine and sheep).
I didn't know you gave me two points. It is like this I am a creationist period regardless of how much others put thier faith into science
That sort of reply doesn't get Christians many brownie points, not least since you ducked all my points.
Like I said I didn't see any points. I am not a Christan to get brownie points from the world and could care less what the world thinks, I am a follower of Christ and care what He thinks
The context makes it clear that Our Lord was speaking in symbolic language. He frequently spoke in idiom, parable and metaphor...and in every case he makes it clear when he is doing so And when he is not. What, other than your own lack of faith in it, makes you think the biblical creation accounts are intended to be read in anything other than the literal sense? As one creationist, i believe in the real presence of christ in the eucharist but i reject the tridentine concept of transubstantiation.