4 in 10 Americans Still Hold Creationist Views

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have not engaged with Collins' ideas, so I can't really offer an opinion on them one way or the other, but it seems to me from your summary of them here that he is akin to a deist.

At present, I am attracted to deism as it seems to be the most reasonable position for those of us who believe in God, but are also committed to naturalism. However, more recently, I find myself less enthused about deism a few months ago, as it still presumes that God is a transcendent outside agent. I am much more interested at present in working my way through a philosophical system that sees God as an active agent within my reality: a much less transcendent God, and a much more naturalistic one. Of course, such a concept of God must utterly do away with such cardinal Christian theoological ideas as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity, etc. This is okay as far as I am concerned; I find it much more stimulating to interact with a God who is not so alien.

As for the numbers in the first post, they provide for some optimism if the numbers of "true believers" is actually gradually in decline.

Hmmmmm...your not turning Wicca on us are you Tc?

[algernon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

See answers in red...so my question falls to you....do you believe wholeheartedly that man must believe in a God <any God> to do good unto others, or to be a good person? Not at all.
Your Grandparents were born of another era when religion was demanded of most people. I'm sure they would have been great giving people had they been allowed to grow up without the associated guilt.

I guess I'm saying that even if people are 'misguided' that doesn't automatically make them a problem. I don't think all Catholics support raping young children, or that all Muslims condone blowing people up.

I appreciate your views better now, thank you.

/bows* out of religious debate.

*pun intended

[photon]

Yeah Collin's ideas do seem deistic with respect to science, but he still very much believes in the interventionist god of the Bible, just with softer interpretations of scripture in cases where it contradicts observed reality.. the creation account is an analogy for each person's imperfection and rejection of god, that kind of thing.

It's an odd mix and I find the BioLogos site falls back to a "this is what different people think, and these views don't contradict the science" position rather than actually taking a position on something.

I agree, deism seems attractive but in the end there's no practical difference between deism and atheism, the only seeming difference being a check box somewhere that gets checked, belief or not belief.

A monist pantheism is what most appeals to me, but again the practical life of a such a one and an agnostic atheist would be indistinguishable.

[Textcritic]

A Wiccan? I don't know about that, but I certainly am becoming closer to a pantheist.

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah Collin's ideas do seem deistic with respect to science, but he still very much believes in the interventionist god of the Bible, just with softer interpretations of scripture in cases where it contradicts observed reality.. the creation account is an analogy for each person's imperfection and rejection of god, that kind of thing.

Yeah, I am past the idea of an "interventionist god", in large part because intervention never actually occurs even though it so often seems to, and also because such anonymous intervention seems to contradict with what a theist must imagine to be the prefect character of God. Why does God ever "intervene" IF that God is perfect? Are not interventions better explained as part of a properly functioning natural world in which an active "God" still experiences its effects?

Originally Posted by photon

It's an odd mix and I find the BioLogos site falls back to a "this is what different people think, and these views don't contradict the science" position rather than actually taking a position on something.

I am becoming so tired of the need within Christians for reconciliations of our contradictions. This usually always goes back to one's ideas with regards to Scripture, and this is where my thoughts find their strongest traction. Once we abandon the notion that Scripture is a persistent revelation, we are the free to explore the world outside of the confines of Scripture. As a biblical scholar, I personally find Scripture only interesting in so far as it is incredibly important literature for better understanding the history of ideas in the Western world. It's revalatory status is gone, and it only survives as the raw data from which much more comprehensive and sensible models of theology and philosophy have emerged. It continues to be meaningful for a lot of people today, but for me, any experience that I might continue to have with God occurs completely outside of Scripture.

Originally Posted by photon

I agree, deism seems attractive but in the end there's no practical difference between deism and atheism, the only seeming difference being a check box somewhere that gets checked, belief or not belief.

I don't think so. The difference between whether one believes in a transcendent reality or not is substantial. For deists, a belief in transcendence has become the only grounds on which they can maintain a belief in God. For me, I am dissatisfied with the notion that there is anything transcendental: this is just another "god-of-the-gaps". As I am dissatisfied with the idea of anything transcendental, God must be apart of the natural world and exist entirely within it. Of course, our understanding of the natural world continues to expand, so really, it is always expanding to include God. When considered from a deistic perspective, I can't help but think that as the natural world expands, any idea of a transcendental god must necessarily contract.

Originally Posted by photon

A monist pantheism is what most appeals to me, but again the practical life of a such a one and an agnostic atheist would be indistinguishable.

Yeah, this is much closer to where I am at present.

[Stimpy]

I'm actually quite surprised the number is that low. I would have thought the number would have been north of 60 for the pro-creationist cause.

[SeeBass]

that has to be the lowest number I have ever scene in relation to the question

I dont believe it

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by jimmy stang

i can see this thread ending well...

lol.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cheese

See answers in red...so my question falls to you....do you believe wholeheartedly that man must believe in a God <any God> to do good unto others, or to be a good person?
Your Grandparents were born of another era when religion was demanded of most people. I'm sure they would have been great giving people had they been allowed to grow up without the associated guilt.

Of course your pastor friend falls back on "faith," what do you think believing in a religion entails?

What, to you, is the foundation of belief? Provable fact? Nothing wrong with that, but it won't work with religion, and you shouldn't think negatively of someone or what they believe in based merely on what you deem as them having "faith." You have faith your wife won't cheat on you, and that, in itself is not detestable. Faith taken by itself is not a negative. Faith in something on its own is often seen as a positive thing, still, in our modern society.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

The existence of God depends entirely upon the divine's ability to inspire action and reveal truth to humanity.

Is a holy war against sinners is proof (or perhaps requisite) of God's existence?

[Vulcan]

Since god is everywhere, than nature is a part of god. I look at this world and universe as something that has a rhythm, just as the seasons and days have their order so do we as we are also a part of god. When we are part of this rhythm, life flows beautifully, even though we may not always appreciate it. I don't look at it as god interfering but when we are in tune with god such a thing as Jesus walking on water isn't a miracle (if it happened) just that it was a rare very cold day and the water froze which fit into Jesus' wish to reach his friends on the boat. Not that I'm a christian, just using this as an example.

[SeeBass]

^^^ so what you are saying is the water could have been frozen but his friends were in a boat?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Is a holy war against sinners is proof (or perhaps requisite) of God's existence?

The essence of truth exists outside of anything else. This is what the atheist crusaders understand less than anyone.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think so. The difference between whether one believes in a transcendent reality or not is substantial. For deists, a belief in transcendence has become the only grounds on which they can maintain a belief in God.

I guess that's true, but for a deist what balances on the question of if there is a transcendent reality? They can believe in something beyond the physical real, believe in something after death, but other than the hope that that may bring, it's not like they depend on specific actions or beliefs to secure that or to secure any kind of change in their current life.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

For me, I am dissatisfied with the notion that there is anything transcendental: this is just another "god-of-the-gaps".

In math when you end up with a singularity, an infinity, this is indicative of a boundary condition, a place where whatever you are doing isn't adequate to describe whatever it is you are describing.. we see this in physics with black holes and the big bang when time is zero, places where the otherwise extremely successful solutions to general relativity break down. Indicating that they aren't up to the task of describing reality.

I find parallels in language, when we use terms like omniscient, or omnipotent, or infinite, or perfect, or any words which are supposed to describe an absolute.. rather than being descriptive, they fail to be descriptive at all and are just indicating that there's no real answer so we'll just use this word of <insert magic word> to make ourselves feel comfortable. Transcendent, or any kind of dualism, feels the same.. just a word to describe something that cannot be described or even doesn't exist but that has become so loaded over time that people just accept that the meaning is valid.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

The essence of truth exists outside of anything else. This is what the atheist crusaders understand less than anyone.

I would consider belief in absolute truth to require as much faith as any religion.

Perhaps the essence of truth is a concept beyond my comprehesion.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

^^^ so what you are saying is the water could have been frozen but his friends were in a boat?

Sure, everything may not have been frozen. As I said 'if it happened' this could be an explanation but you are missing the point. I don't mean this to be an argument about my possible example, I'm offering a point of view for this life.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

I'm actually quite surprised the number is that low. I would have thought the number would have been north of 60 for the pro-creationist cause.

North of 60?

The Gallup results are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.

If this is a weighted poll looking for real numbers why in "hell" would they use religion?

Personally I would like to see a US gallop poll based on education and IQ. I could see south of 10% for people with above average IQs easily.

This article is a couple of years old. and most of the polls cited are far older.

Belief in God is much lower among academics than among the general population because scholars have higher IQs, a controversial academic claimed this week.

The paper - which was co-written with John Harvey, who does not report a university affiliation, and Helmuth Nyborg, of the University of Aarhus, Denmark - cites studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.

Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=402381&c=2

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess that's true, but for a deist what balances on the question of if there is a transcendent reality? They can believe in something beyond the physical real, believe in something after death, but other than the hope that that may bring, it's not like they depend on specific actions or beliefs to secure that or to secure any kind of change in their current life.



In math when you end up with a singularity, an infinity, this is indicative of a boundary condition, a place where whatever you are doing isn't adequate to describe whatever it is you are describing.. we see this in physics with black holes and the big bang when time is zero, places where the otherwise extremely successful solutions to general relativity break down. Indicating that they aren't up to the task of describing reality.

I find parallels in language, when we use terms like omniscient, or omnipotent, or infinite, or perfect, or any words which are supposed to describe an absolute.. rather than being descriptive, they fail to be descriptive at all and are just indicating that there's no real answer so we'll just use this word of <insert magic word> to make ourselves feel comfortable. Transcendent, or any kind of dualism, feels the same.. just a word to describe something that cannot be described or even doesn't exist but that has become so loaded over time that people just accept that the meaning is valid.

The Greeks to the Medievals had an interesting notion of how to "measure" or feel the divine. The aesthetic level experienced through nature and best through art gives us an idea of what transcendence is. Us moderns don't really discuss beauty in its proper religious context.

We could discover or feel transcendence if we allowed ourselves to think past the scientific abstracts or concepts that we've swamped ourselves in. Real art, which in my mind, is the only way to grasp the divine through human hands is slowly dying with the rise of criticism and marketing. We don't give ourselves time to breathe.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by T@T

North of 60?


If this is a weighted poll looking for real numbers why in "hell" would they use religion?

Personally I would like to see a US gallop poll based on education and IQ. I could see south of 10% for people with above average IQs easily.

This article is a couple of years old. and most of the polls cited are far older.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=402381&c=2

Polls like this just convince me that most of our academics and intellectuals have brains full of putty and mashed potatoes.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by peter12

Polls like this just convince me that most of our academics and intellectuals have brains full of putty and mashed potatoes.

And if it was the other way around you would say "see" God must exist, the best minds in the world believe.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by T@T

And if it was the other way around you would say "see" God must exist, the best minds in the world believe.

I've said about two hundred times that I don't believe in God. Democracy is a very poor measure for such questions though.