3379

right eyes = non-scientific eyes?

3380

I could respect this point of view as long as he kept it to himself and didn’t try to make everyone else think the same thing. If you want to believe in the Bible as literal truth, fine with me, just don’t try to make everyone else believe it.

3381

Well part of being a Christian is sharing your religion. Where it often falls apart is you can’t make someone believe something by force… If they want to share their belief, that’s fine. Just don’t force it.

My point is there are intelligent people within nearly every faith, many if not most, and many of the faiths have a creation type approach. The ones that make the news though are… often not. If they were ordinary, typical, I suspect they wouldn’t make the news anyway.

3382

Ah, the old “fossils and geology are just God trolling scientists” argument.

I could never figure out why God would put his True Word into malleable text, which can be, and demonstrably has been, edited, cut, lost, and distorted through translation by mere men. Then, into the very stone itself, He locked trollish lies, designed to mislead you unless you consult the (mistranslated 7,978 times, hacked up and re-arranged) text.

3383

Which is more likely:
God is trying to trick us, but it’s still a good guy.
Or
Some barely literate ancient person made a mistake writing down stuff

3384

Does any of that really matter?

If you have a biochemist who does his job, treats his neighbor well, and doesn’t practice extreme hate against other groups, what does it matter to you if that biochemist thinks something literally a million years or old or fake million. He obviously accepts science on a level that most couldn’t even try to achieve despite their beliefs as a bio chemist. and Young earth is at the extreme end of the spectrum.

We’re not going to erase religion simply by telling everyone sorry guys your book is wrong. There are ways to practice these beliefs which are not violent and doesn’t force others to believe them but sure, they’ll engage once awhile. Let them.

3385

Also known as the Omphalos theory. The world was created looking older than it actually is, just as Adam had a navel despite not having ever had an umbilical cord.

There’s nothing especially inconsistent in the idea that we have an omnipotent deity who likes to deceive us, but I’m not sure on what basis people then decide Scripture is trustworthy.

3386

Ah, the old “benevolent religion does no harm” argument.

Yes, of course it matters. Religious people vote. Religious people believe in magic. Religious people are satisfied with not understanding reality. And worst of all, religious people teach this crazy shit to their kids, which is just another form of child abuse.

And it’s not “your book is wrong,” it’s “you still believe in fucking Santa Claus, WTF is wrong with you?”

3387

So if you believe in Santa Clause, does that mean you believe in higher or lower taxes, will you prefer guns for everyone or gun control, and does that makes you sexist or not sexist. What does the belief in Santa Clause actually mean… politically anyways. Also not all Christians vote the same way or have the exact same beliefs, so the belief itself doesn’t mean you can guarantee a vote one way or another. There are people of faith in the GOP and with the Democrats so again, what do you think having a religion actually means when it comes to the political system?

3388

The political and moral consequences of religion don’t especially interest me – I’m just interested in whether their claims are true. Is there actually an omnipotent entity out there who identifies with the Hebrew god known as YHWH? and so forth. Of course, other people are free to believe what they want, which is a bedrock of a free society, not that I have any power to make it otherwise even if I wished to. I do prefer it if other people don’t believe in millennialist theology, as that is going to disincentivize them on things like sustainability or climate change. And I am extremely leery of excessively evangelical/conversion-focused thinking, as even a brief survey of European history shows some of the grisly consequences of that. But it’s not like I can wave my hand and change their minds…

3389

There are progressive Christian groups that actually do and believe a lot of what you espouse. Sadly, their aren’t a ton of members and of course, young people who make up the majority of these groups tend to leave the faith.

As a practicing Christian who regular goes to church and believes strongly, I truly believe that most members of the Christian Right deserve to burn in hell for all of damnation. Sadly, I also believe in a forgiving god, so that isn’t likely going to happen. Stupid credo of forgiveness. I wish I could buy into the fire and brimstone.

3390

I agree. I’m Catholic (kinda - I would like God to be real, but science and reality say otherwise - so I’ll remain neutral) and I like that the Catholic church has said “get a clue people, parts of the Bible that contradict Science are fairy tales”.

And some irony: if one tries to force Creationism or other crazy stuff on others, then it demonstrates their Faith is in such a depsrate straight, that admitting otherwise would destroy their entire world. To admit Genesis wasn’t fact would throw collapse the foundation they built their entire existence off of.

Then you have tv preachers who I’m sure don’t believe a single word they’re saying, but they’re making millions and are sociopaths so they don’t care. Ken Ham is one of these people.

3391

I would love to convince every random creationist I run across that there is totally overwhelming, scientifically tested evidence in favor of evolution. But I also agree that they have the right to believe what they want to believe. I get annoyed when they try to use their willful ignorance to set public policy. But I get really annoyed at scientists who publish naïve studies that are easily misconstrued as ‘evidence’ of special creation, especially if their motivation to do so is to ‘revolutionize’ evolutionary biology. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case with the ‘200,000 years’ paper.

3392

On the upside, 200,000 years is incompatible with Young Earth Creationism.

3393

You have to remember that many Christians conflate evolution with abiogenesis. They believe that God created the universe and all life in it. They think that fully accepting evolution means that God can have no place in that creation.

So if it seems odd that someone who is otherwise rational and intelligent identifies more closely with creationism than evolution, that’s probably why. They’re most likely speaking loosely and simply affirming their faith in God, the giver of life.

3394

Yep… Christianity seems compatible with science, but Biblical Literalism is not.

3395

Well, perhaps. Christianity does rest on a set of miracles, which are not compatible with science. But in general, I think it is possible to reconcile the two belief systems adequately for most people. The Jesuits seem to manage it pretty well.

3396

I think most people who are scientists and also Christian/Jewish/Muslim can most easily reconcile the two in their heads using the clockmaker theory, that being that God set things in motion (for example, the big bang), and then let it go without interference. I know that’s where my own head was at for most of my life. I haven’t really thought about it much and likely wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for Creationism and taking things in scripture literally, which seems so stupid.

3397

Science is an inherently naturalist epistemology. It starts with the premise that it’s possible to understand how things work by observing, collecting data and applying inductive reasoning to suss out systematic explanations (i.e. “theories”) that are compatible with some data sets, and–crucially–not incompatible with any data sets. By definition, since the knowledge acquired this way comes directly from observation of nature, it precludes supernatural explanations for all phenomena. If Christianity is compatible with science, it also must also preclude supernatural explanations. Christianity without the supernatural is a morality based on the lifestyle of ancient desert nomads, wrapped awkwardly around a personality cult centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and lightly steeped in odd portions of the classical Greek philosophical tradition. It is woefully anachronistic, navel gazing, and bizarre. It may be compatible with science, but without the deity and miracles and angels and stuff, it doesn’t have much of a point.

3398

Being a creationist and being intelligent are not at all antithetical.

Being a creationist and being educated is harder, but not impossible.

Being a creationist, being educated and being intelligent does not seem to work out though. I’m not sure how that could ever happen.

My attitude towards anti-science religious folks is generally a kind of benign neglect, perhaps mixed with some condescension. If you want to believe that stuff, that’s fine. If you want to believe that scientific theories and axioms are lies despite their proven usefulness in producing wonders, I’m totally OK with that – there are plenty of occupations out there that do not require a scientific education, and those jobs still need to be filled until advances in AI and automation render them OBE. My kids will shoot for the (mostly lucrative) jobs that your beliefs will exclude you and yours from working.

So I say to them: sail on, religious wanderer! As long as your beliefs don’t impinge on my kids’ chances of success, feel free to ignore what you will. But as soon as you try and prevent my kids from being taught science, you are my hated foe.