Atheist sees image of Big Bang in piece of toast

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Just a great post, Text. It is long-ish, and that may mean that a few don't make it all the way through, but I'm glad you came along to set the record straight.

I'm curious about one thing you said--when you posited that evangelical Christianity has its genesis as a reaction to enlightenment thought, deism and Modernity. Although I'd never thought of that formulation, it has the ring of truth--and for years I've been teaching my students in Am. Lit. Hist. that the theological spiritualism of Emerson and Thoreau was a reaction to the rationalism of enlightenment thinkers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. (not to mention Charles Brockden Brown, whose reaction comes earlier but is no less spiritual).

Which leads me to a question of definition, because as you say "evangelical" Christianity seems to me not only to be a reaction to modernity but also a product of it. I fully admit that I don't know much about the history and I'm hoping you can set me straight--but it seems to me that although the Calvinists, Congregationalists, Quakers and their ilk who were major driving forces behind the abolition of Slavery in America may have shared some evangelical qualities, that they were not "Evangelical with a capital 'E'" in the way you describe. Certainly they were not as interested in a biblical life, if I'm understanding how that works correctly.

So--if Evangelicals are reacting to the enlightenment, who are their earliest progenitors? If, as I suspect, (though do set me straight if I'm wrong) their history begins in the 19th century, then why such a long time after the enlightenment?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So--if Evangelicals are reacting to the enlightenment, who are their earliest progenitors? If, as I suspect, (though do set me straight if I'm wrong) their history begins in the 19th century, then why such a long time after the enlightenment?

Well, considering that the Evangelical movement is an American movement - in that it started and is the strongest there - it's not that much of a stretch, I think, to view the Puritan colonists as the 'progenitors' of Evangelism. And the Puritans were contemporaneous with the Enlightenment and absolutely a reaction to it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by driveway

Well, considering that the Evangelical movement is an American movement - in that it started and is the strongest there - it's not that much of a stretch, I think, to view the Puritan colonists as the 'progenitors' of Evangelism. And the Puritans were contemporaneous with the Enlightenment and absolutely a reaction to it.

I see what you're saying, but I guess for me Puritans are the progenitors of "good works" Christians, like Methodists. I fully admit my understanding of this is pretty limited, but as I understand it Puritans weren't all that interested in evangelism as a measure of virtue. They wanted religious freedom, but they weren't really into missionary work or proselytizing in general.

[chris lindberg]

Sounds like there is still some good acid around these days, I once watched a smoke stack all night on LSD, seen all kinds of cool shapes, lol

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

What a terrible comparison.. Black people don't choose to be black, they are born that way.. You folks choose to believe in God, religion, and everything related.. Why is it that religion can't be questioned, poked fun at or examined in detail? After all isnt it just a theory?? Is there actual compelling evidence that God exists?

My folks?

Too bad there isn't an emoticon to point out REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm to people who cannot see REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My folks?

Too bad there isn't an emoticon to point out REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm to people who cannot see REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm.

Didn't you get the memo? There's an official CP font colour!

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What he wrote.

You know what, when it comes to hockey I think you're an idiot ( ) but after reading that I have a new found respect for you. That was very well written.

[Itse]

I always get somewhat amused or annoyed (depending on my previous mood) by this vision of scientists by the ID/creatonist/whateverIdon'tlikeyourtheory group that sees them as people who don't like it when someone questions the "accepted" theories. (Actually, since people tend to believe everyone is like them, this kind of stuff tells more about the people saying this stuff than of the intended targets.)

That's the most absurd thing ever, really, when you think about it. Sure, nobody likes to see THEIR theory be discredited, but since every theory is credited to only very few people, the rest of "the scientist crowd" don't have a personal interest (except that they might like to see their rivals put down), and being scientists, they actually tend to get crazily excited when faced with the notion that there is actually a new, better theory they could work with. (One of the reasons being that the more of the old gets thrown out, the more there's room for new papers to be published. New theories mean new things to explore and more reputation and money to be made.)

In other words, scientists LOVE new theories. Just look at the Nobels, the most prestigious scientific prize out there; you get those for coming up with something new, not just tweaking the old established theories. That right there should tell you what "the scientist crowd" truly appreciates.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

photon your above posts lacks information. You accuse me of being ignorant of the big bang theory and misrepresenting it and thats that. You make no attempt to impart knowledge yourself.

Here is a link to an article on the big bang theory. The fellow is a scientist but, he is also a creationist so I guess that gives you permission to disregard him.

http://www.icr.org/article/343/

The Institute for Creation Research? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Seriously, if you religious types believe in creationism so stronly, why is there an institute to research it? Talk about lack of faith! Just another in a long line of contradictions that religious types continually fall into. Dude, this is the second straght thread you've been pulverized in. My suggestion, keep your religious beliefs to yourself and save yourself from future beatdowns.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The Institute for Creation Research? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Seriously, if you religious types believe in creationism so stronly, why is there an institute to research it? Talk about lack of faith! Just another in a long line of contradictions that religious types continually fall into. Dude, this is the second straght thread you've been pulverized in. My suggestion, keep your religious beliefs to yourself and save yourself from future beatdowns.

Don't they still research the Big Bang?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My folks?

Too bad there isn't an emoticon to point out REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm to people who cannot see REAL, REAL obvious sarcasm.

Too bad theres people who can't express sarcasm effectively via online forums.. I reread your original post a couple times and it isnt all that obvious.. If the whistle at the end is supposed to show sarcasm I apparently didnt get the memo..

[Flames in 07]

well what else would it mean. Since you are re reading re read it again, and note how silly the kkk comment is in the first place.

You know, when I typed it I though ahh there is always that one person who won't get it, but then I thought, no the kkk comparision was so novel that nobody could possibly think its serious.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

well what else would it mean. Since you are re reading re read it again, and note how silly the kkk comment is in the first place.

You know, when I typed it I though ahh there is always that one person who won't get it, but then I thought, no the kkk comparision was so novel that nobody could possibly think its serious.

I wouldnt have said anything if I didnt think it was rediculous.. I figured there had to be another offended person who thought along CalgaryBorn's line of thinking.. Thankfully there is not..

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Don't they still research the Big Bang?

Yes because it is science. I think you might be missing Lanny's point. Creationism is the opposite of research, people read it in a book and therefore it is true. IE no critical thought ... just accepted doctrine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...So--if Evangelicals are reacting to the enlightenment, who are their earliest progenitors? If, as I suspect, (though do set me straight if I'm wrong) their history begins in the 19th century, then why such a long time after the enlightenment?

Most point to the Quakers as the real "progenitors" of evangelicalism. Personally, I would set the intellectual roots of evangelicalism in the founding of Princeton University—then Princeton College—and Seminary. Princeton's third president, Jonathan Edwards, is considered by most to be the father of the First Great Awakening, which in turn produced the real beginnings of evangelical activity: circuit preaching, tent revivals, the "holiness" movements and the early stages of the charismatic revivals. For whatever reason, a serious academic challenge to the enlightenment did not take place until much later, when the Princeton Theological Seminary was founded in the early 19th cent., and when the "Princeton theologians" began the most creative and intensive writing. Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and A.A. Hodge all contributed to the intellectual and philosophical underpinings of what would later come to be a fully developed doctrine of biblical inerrency.

While the Princeton theologians concerned themselves with orthodoxy, there was already a strong tradition of new "orthopraxy" that was essentially adopted from the holiness movements. I think that the convergence between the two was probably natural, and in many ways subconscious. Maybe one of the reasons that evangelicalism did not emerge as a distinct movement until the nineteenth century was because it took some time for rationalism to be so firmly engrained. Remember that the first fundamentalists and evangelicals did not see themselves as part of something new: the were conservatives. Because they were—in their own minds—reinforcing "traditions", they were incapable to see that they were actually using a relatively new system of thought and reason to reinforce their own religious ideas.

The same type of thinking persists to this day. Modern day evangelicals who subscribe to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrency believe that this is a normative theological position that was no different from Calvin's or Luther's or Augustine's or Justin Martyr's or even Paul's or Jesus'. In their own mind, biblical inerrency is self evident and requires no explanation.

Notre Dame historian George Marsden is the foremost scholar on the evangelical movement, and I heartily recommend Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).

While there are roots of evangelicalism in the Presbyterian and Congregational churches, the real movement was grassroots, and was largely produced through tent revivals and circuit preachers. New England "spiritism" and the holiness movements of the second Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, and later figures such as Billy Sunday, Dwight Moody, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the UK were seminal in defining boundaries of evangelicalism as a single movement.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Yes because it is science. I think you might be missing Lanny's point. Creationism is the opposite of research, people read it in a book and therefore it is true. IE no critical thought ... just accepted doctrine.

Maybe, but I think that there are researchers on either side who are looking at a lot of the same stuff and interpreting differently. There are plenty of actual scientists that research different aspects of creation theory too... don't kid yourself. The wide known scientists 'researching' creation are loud mouthed idiots, but that doesn't discount that there are researchers out there looking into various things that would point to some version of creation. (There isn't just one, believe it or not...) Hell, isn't that essentially what the Big Bang is?

Either way, Lanny is being a hypocrite in his post. Just wanted to point it out.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Don't they still research the Big Bang?

The Institute for Creation Research. You don't see the contradiction in that name? I guess not.

Originally Posted by FireFly

Maybe, but I think that there are researchers on either side who are looking at a lot of the same stuff and interpreting differently. There are plenty of actual scientists that research different aspects of creation theory too... don't kid yourself. The wide known scientists 'researching' creation are loud mouthed idiots, but that doesn't discount that there are researchers out there looking into various things that would point to some version of creation. (There isn't just one, believe it or not...) Hell, isn't that essentially what the Big Bang is?

Either way, Lanny is being a hypocrite in his post. Just wanted to point it out.

Before calling someone a hypocrite, maybe have a better grip on the subject matter, especially what constitutes science. Also better get a grip on your terminology and recognise that "creation" has several different meanings, but a scientist and a theologian would not use the same terms to define "creation" and they likely wouldn't use them in the same context to describe the birth of the universe.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Most point to the Quakers as the real "progenitors" of evangelicalism. Personally, I would set the intellectual roots of evangelicalism in the founding of Princeton University—...

Really interesting post. As a more or less amateur student of U.S. history I have an interest in this kind of stuff. I wouldn't have guessed that you'd point to Quakers, though I see your logic. Thanks for the info.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Really interesting post. As a more or less amateur student of U.S. history I have an interest in this kind of stuff. I wouldn't have guessed that you'd point to Quakers, though I see your logic. Thanks for the info.

Thanks.

I must confess that my own interest is far more personal than professional. My own field of study is Second Temple Jewish literature, and, more particularly, the shape and development of scripture c. 400 B.C.E.–100 C.E. I am probably biased, but it is my conviction that this 500 year period is the most important for understanding both Judaism and Christianity.

My own interest in evangelicalism grew somewhat out of my own studies, as the doctrine of biblical inerrency became less and less tenable amid the very fluid and imprecise form and function of Scripture in ancient history. I have spent some time reflecting upon my own confessional roots in an effort both to understand better the movement apart from the evangelical "mythology", and to find a better way to cope spiritually. I remain an evangelical, despite the fact that I have rejected some critical evangelical beliefs regarding Scripture, the afterlife, and religion and culture in general.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The Institute for Creation Research. You don't see the contradiction in that name? I guess not.

Don't institutes usually research? Perhaps there's an institute for research on the big bang? I'm sure if there isn't a whole institute on it, there's a lot of scientists who research it anyway...

Before calling someone a hypocrite, maybe have a better grip on the subject matter, especially what constitutes science. Also better get a grip on your terminology and recognise that "creation" has several different meanings, but a scientist and a theologian would not use the same terms to define "creation" and they likely wouldn't use them in the same context to describe the birth of the universe.

My grim is firm, Lanny. In any science, you have a theory, and you try to comfirm or contradict it, and then work from those conclusions. There is more to creation theory than just "and then we're here." There are other ways creation could have happened and only the close minded would fail to see that. The Big Bang is only one of the other theories, and scientists work hard to either confirm or deny plausibility, cause that's just what it is... And if they find something new, they input that data and keep going. You can redefine science so why can't you redefine religion?