I go to a public, liberal university. We've been talking a lot about God in my history, philosophy, writing, and psycology course, but we haven't even mentioned evolution in my science classes. Are the fundies gaining ground? 
Are the fundies gaining ground?
- Thread starter notPresidentAndrew
- Start date
The study of evolution, in particular at the scientific level goes in contradictions with most popular religions. Could that be a possible cause?Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
I go to a public, liberal university. We've been talking a lot about God in my history, philosophy, writing, and psycology course, but we haven't even mentioned evolution in my science classes. Are the fundies gaining ground?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Are the fundies gaining ground?
What does that have to do with not mentioning evolution in science classes?
Losing ground
Actually, they're losing ground. As religion is relegated to the courses you mentioned, it is often in the form of examining the role of religions in the histories of each discipline; for instance, what is the religious contribution to Victorianism, the social rigidity of which led to such disorders as Sigmund Freud would document. I can't say whether or not your coursework follows such a progression, but by and large this is a positive thing, the opening of religions to academic examination. Many of the things we learn about religions would have been outside the range of acceptable discussion in days past.
The appearance of fundamentalist gain comes from a number of factors. Certainly, there are a lot of them, and what with televangelism, Chick tracts, and political movements aimed at polarizing the least-educated portions of our society, there ought to be a lot of them. But their political influence is waning as the number of prominent and respectable representative minds decreases with time. And so the fundies are left to their political causes as the only way of affirming their faith. Hence they seem to be everywhere--my drugs, music collection, library, sex life, political affiliations, and dietary habits are all regarded as "sinful" by various fundamental Christians. While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets. So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process, when fundamentalists insist on reenacting social failures (sex ed, safe sex) and only have their narrow Biblical interpretations to bolster their cause, when fundamentalists insist that their free speech is violated by the possession of the same rights by non-Christians, when fundamentalists spend their efforts on internecene strife, when fundamentalists justify bigotry, when fundamentalists .... At any rate, all of this negativity with nothing but fanatical religious faith to legitimize it. Think about it. Wave after wave of ridiculousness by a desperate and incompetent lobby. Their numbers are probably growing, but their power isn't, as none of the body faithful has a clue how to properly exploit that political voice. It doesn't inspire the educated and sane to take part.
Watch carefully: they're doing what any losing empire does--getting louder in their dismay.
And that's about all they're doing. I can't think of a single social issue broached by fundamentalist Christianity in my lifetime that has actually favored the Christian perspective.
It's ugly, I know. But I recall Bugs Bunny taunting, "Mommy, look at the funny fish!"
Fundamentalist Christianity, especially within a political power balance, reminds me of a Looney Tunes cartoon.
thanx,
Tiassa
Actually, they're losing ground. As religion is relegated to the courses you mentioned, it is often in the form of examining the role of religions in the histories of each discipline; for instance, what is the religious contribution to Victorianism, the social rigidity of which led to such disorders as Sigmund Freud would document. I can't say whether or not your coursework follows such a progression, but by and large this is a positive thing, the opening of religions to academic examination. Many of the things we learn about religions would have been outside the range of acceptable discussion in days past.
The appearance of fundamentalist gain comes from a number of factors. Certainly, there are a lot of them, and what with televangelism, Chick tracts, and political movements aimed at polarizing the least-educated portions of our society, there ought to be a lot of them. But their political influence is waning as the number of prominent and respectable representative minds decreases with time. And so the fundies are left to their political causes as the only way of affirming their faith. Hence they seem to be everywhere--my drugs, music collection, library, sex life, political affiliations, and dietary habits are all regarded as "sinful" by various fundamental Christians. While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets. So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process, when fundamentalists insist on reenacting social failures (sex ed, safe sex) and only have their narrow Biblical interpretations to bolster their cause, when fundamentalists insist that their free speech is violated by the possession of the same rights by non-Christians, when fundamentalists spend their efforts on internecene strife, when fundamentalists justify bigotry, when fundamentalists .... At any rate, all of this negativity with nothing but fanatical religious faith to legitimize it. Think about it. Wave after wave of ridiculousness by a desperate and incompetent lobby. Their numbers are probably growing, but their power isn't, as none of the body faithful has a clue how to properly exploit that political voice. It doesn't inspire the educated and sane to take part.
Watch carefully: they're doing what any losing empire does--getting louder in their dismay.
And that's about all they're doing. I can't think of a single social issue broached by fundamentalist Christianity in my lifetime that has actually favored the Christian perspective.
It's ugly, I know. But I recall Bugs Bunny taunting, "Mommy, look at the funny fish!"
Fundamentalist Christianity, especially within a political power balance, reminds me of a Looney Tunes cartoon.
thanx,
Tiassa
"my drugs, music collection, library, sex life, political affiliations, and dietary habits are all regarded as "sinful" by various fundamental Christians. "
what dietary habits are considered sinful?
"While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets."
Are you saying that that you were 'enlightened' by drugs? kinda like the people who claim to have cloaned the first human who believe they were told how by aliens in the 70's???? Christians are not against music, books, or politics, lots of sex is also fine as longs as it is within a marriage and i still dont know what diets you're talking about!
"So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process..."
we ask that because its hardly fair to tout the THEORY of evolution as fact and not even mention the creationism theory
what dietary habits are considered sinful?
"While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets."
Are you saying that that you were 'enlightened' by drugs? kinda like the people who claim to have cloaned the first human who believe they were told how by aliens in the 70's???? Christians are not against music, books, or politics, lots of sex is also fine as longs as it is within a marriage and i still dont know what diets you're talking about!
"So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process..."
we ask that because its hardly fair to tout the THEORY of evolution as fact and not even mention the creationism theory
New Life
In the meantime:
- Music: I'm quite sorry, but it has not been atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, witches, Navajo, &c. who have told me that this or that music is "bad for good people" and meant only for "degenerates" that society doesn't need. One of the classic moments of the 1980s censorship battle was Prince Albert (Gore) asking Dee Snider of Twisted Sister to talk about the fan club. S.M.F., Mr. Snider informed then-Senator Gore, means "Sick Mother Fuckers", or "Sick Mother Fucking Fans of Twisted Sister". Gore's response was a wisecrack: "I take it that's a wholesome Christian youth organization?" Add to that input from the "Moral Majority", who held sway until Falwell's crash from glory in the 1980s and I think the case gets even stronger. There was Bob DeMoss, a former rock and roll DJ who, in the early 1990s led high school students to protest concerts by Poison because they offended Christian values and sensibilities. Or perhaps Bob Larson, now a self-declared exorcist, a master of the ellipsus, who used to print as little as half the lyrics of a song in order to demonize it and appeal to parental "common sense". Maybe the moralists in South Carolina and Virginia who sought to ban Marilyn Manson from performing in their areas?
I'm well aware that Christians are not "against music, books, or politics", but:
- Who was it, again, that called for the burning of Harry Potter novels? Oh, yeah, those pesky Hindus.
- Who was it that petitioned the Salem-Keizer school board to remove Robert R. McCammon's "Demon Walk" from the high school library because the presence of a book with the word "Demon" violated her First Amendment rights as a Christian?
- How is it that the most Christian album I know of comes from a band decried in the 1980s as Satanic? (Savatage, "Streets: A Rock Opera")
- I've never heard an atheist call the Democratic Party the party of the devil.
- It wasn't a Jew who got so pissed at a library book in Springfield, Oregon, that a ten-year campaign ensued to chase gays out of the state. Millions of dollars were wasted, felonies were committed, and amid it all, two people were murdered for the crime of being gay and offending Christian sensibilities.
You're changing the conditions when you defend Christianity against the assertion that it is against music, books, and politics. What you should be considering more directly is the fundamentalist tendency to lay seige against the First Amendment, demanding that books, music, and politics meet a standard of Christian satisfaction. This repugnant, anti-expressionist behavior goes on today.
- Joke: How do you cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her.
- On a more serious note (barely)--"Within a marriage" would work better if people were allowed to get married.
Of that last, what you're overlooking is that Christians set limits on "marriage".
But as to sex: Marriage is a farce. The last numbers I saw, from about 1999, collected by a Christian research group, made the shocking suggestions that Christian marriages break down faster than other marriages, and suffer a higher divorce rate. Getting laid ain't worth that much trouble, especially in the age of internet porn and personal-lubricant ads on television.
Furthermore, though, let's look at the Christian record on sex:
- Heterosexuals only (almost universal among Xnty)
- No artificial birth control (Catholics and a few others)
- No sex ed for sexually-active youth (fundamentalists promoting ignorance)
- Attempted prevention of proper medical training in the state of Oregon (Oregon Citizens Alliance, a Biblical-advocacy group)
Now, perhaps, New Life, you are puzzled because you've never burned a book or demanded a person be denied civil and human rights based on the gender of their sexual partner. But, at 29 years old, I can honestly say that Christians have, for my whole life, been bitching and moaning about sex, art, speech, and politics, and have been demanding a supremacist standard before they are satisfied that Christianity is fairly respected in society.
- Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ"--if ever the Christians shot themselves in the foot, this was the occasion. It wasn't that great a photo. Most people don't know what they're looking at until they're unfortunate to ask.
- Two musical endeavors I can think of off the top of my head that were condemned in their day by the California State Legislature as being Satanic (a little undue political influence there if we're condemning publicly according to Christian standards?): Styx, for "Snowblind", an anti-cocaine song; and Peter Gabriel, which makes even less sense once one listens to "Solsbury Hill" and "Here Comes the Flood".
- Rev. Donald Wildmon, calling on Christians to boycott Disney for extending benefits to "domestic partners".
- Jerry Falwell, adulterer, criticizing "Hustler" magazine.
- Ronald Reagan failing to account for the AIDS epidemic, since HIV was "God's punishment to gays", or, "the Gay Measles".
What? This is all during my lifetime, and I've not lived that long.
I can't recall ever being taught that evolution was pure fact. I think that assertion is a myth invented by desperate Creationists. I've always known that the theory is incomplete. However, I have yet to see any other theory which comes close to describing what takes place in the world to the same degree of accuracy.
And on that note, Christians ought to cease treating the Theory of Evolution and the scientific process itself as closed and finished processes. I realize that no truly new knowledge about God has emerged for two-thousand years or so, but the scientific method is an unfinished process, and its data set will continue to grow so long as there are people to observe things, and things for people to observe.
Seriously--when you wake up tomorrow, will there be a new chapter in the Bible, teaching us what we didn't know about God before? No.
When you wake up tomorrow, will there be new scientific information teaching us what we didn't know about the Universe before? Yes.
Do you see how those conditions are different?
Or when someone insists that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because of some tracks in the floodplain in Texas: What would you like me to think when a Creationist tells me that "erosion" is too wildly speculative a factor to include in any theory explaining the proximity of these tracks? I don't have to leave the house to see erosion taking place. But apparently, erosion--and especially in a floodplain--is too rare an effect to be included in any hypothesis? Come on ....
And I realize that these people I'm describing must sound like complete idiots to you. But here's the kicker: They all identify themselves as Christians, and cite their faith as one of their motivations.
So the question, then, becomes: "What am I supposed to think of all this?"
Really. Seriously.
29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Jew was about using salt or sand on the roads in winter. 29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Muslim was about who started the fight with the Sikhs in India. 29 years, and the worst disputes I have with atheists are largely existentialist and matters of human integrity. 29 years, and Christians have constantly been condemning me and many others for the things that have taught us and helped build our characters and capabilities.
In terms of the evangelical assertion in my prior post, I think I can stand by it. Fundamentalism turns intelligent people off. Why? They're tired of being abused by Christians. If salvation turns a person into a prig like Falwell, why would anyone take the offer?
thanx,
Tiassa
Depends on who you ask. But I've alternately heard from various Christians criticism of my consumption of pork, caffeine, certain cheeses, and from the ascetics, any food that generally tastes good. Nothing is quite as amusing to a 10 year-old as watching a friend's eyes bug out and then they burst into tears because they didn't realize the drink in their hand had caffeine in it and now they're worried for their very souls. Seriously--people teach their kids all manner of crazy stuff.
Well, there is that, but it's actually beside the point. There are plenty of intelligent, good people who are reminded daily by various Christian groups that they are evil and wrong because they smoke pot, listen to Marilyn Manson (in my day it was Twisted Sister and Judas Priest, and then 2 Live Crew). Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Chrisitian protesting a book in a public library?
In the meantime:
- Music: I'm quite sorry, but it has not been atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, witches, Navajo, &c. who have told me that this or that music is "bad for good people" and meant only for "degenerates" that society doesn't need. One of the classic moments of the 1980s censorship battle was Prince Albert (Gore) asking Dee Snider of Twisted Sister to talk about the fan club. S.M.F., Mr. Snider informed then-Senator Gore, means "Sick Mother Fuckers", or "Sick Mother Fucking Fans of Twisted Sister". Gore's response was a wisecrack: "I take it that's a wholesome Christian youth organization?" Add to that input from the "Moral Majority", who held sway until Falwell's crash from glory in the 1980s and I think the case gets even stronger. There was Bob DeMoss, a former rock and roll DJ who, in the early 1990s led high school students to protest concerts by Poison because they offended Christian values and sensibilities. Or perhaps Bob Larson, now a self-declared exorcist, a master of the ellipsus, who used to print as little as half the lyrics of a song in order to demonize it and appeal to parental "common sense". Maybe the moralists in South Carolina and Virginia who sought to ban Marilyn Manson from performing in their areas?
I'm well aware that Christians are not "against music, books, or politics", but:
- Who was it, again, that called for the burning of Harry Potter novels? Oh, yeah, those pesky Hindus.
- Who was it that petitioned the Salem-Keizer school board to remove Robert R. McCammon's "Demon Walk" from the high school library because the presence of a book with the word "Demon" violated her First Amendment rights as a Christian?
- How is it that the most Christian album I know of comes from a band decried in the 1980s as Satanic? (Savatage, "Streets: A Rock Opera")
- I've never heard an atheist call the Democratic Party the party of the devil.
- It wasn't a Jew who got so pissed at a library book in Springfield, Oregon, that a ten-year campaign ensued to chase gays out of the state. Millions of dollars were wasted, felonies were committed, and amid it all, two people were murdered for the crime of being gay and offending Christian sensibilities.
You're changing the conditions when you defend Christianity against the assertion that it is against music, books, and politics. What you should be considering more directly is the fundamentalist tendency to lay seige against the First Amendment, demanding that books, music, and politics meet a standard of Christian satisfaction. This repugnant, anti-expressionist behavior goes on today.
Two funny things occur to me:
- Joke: How do you cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her.
- On a more serious note (barely)--"Within a marriage" would work better if people were allowed to get married.
Of that last, what you're overlooking is that Christians set limits on "marriage".
But as to sex: Marriage is a farce. The last numbers I saw, from about 1999, collected by a Christian research group, made the shocking suggestions that Christian marriages break down faster than other marriages, and suffer a higher divorce rate. Getting laid ain't worth that much trouble, especially in the age of internet porn and personal-lubricant ads on television.
Furthermore, though, let's look at the Christian record on sex:
- Heterosexuals only (almost universal among Xnty)
- No artificial birth control (Catholics and a few others)
- No sex ed for sexually-active youth (fundamentalists promoting ignorance)
- Attempted prevention of proper medical training in the state of Oregon (Oregon Citizens Alliance, a Biblical-advocacy group)
Now, perhaps, New Life, you are puzzled because you've never burned a book or demanded a person be denied civil and human rights based on the gender of their sexual partner. But, at 29 years old, I can honestly say that Christians have, for my whole life, been bitching and moaning about sex, art, speech, and politics, and have been demanding a supremacist standard before they are satisfied that Christianity is fairly respected in society.
- Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ"--if ever the Christians shot themselves in the foot, this was the occasion. It wasn't that great a photo. Most people don't know what they're looking at until they're unfortunate to ask.
- Two musical endeavors I can think of off the top of my head that were condemned in their day by the California State Legislature as being Satanic (a little undue political influence there if we're condemning publicly according to Christian standards?): Styx, for "Snowblind", an anti-cocaine song; and Peter Gabriel, which makes even less sense once one listens to "Solsbury Hill" and "Here Comes the Flood".
- Rev. Donald Wildmon, calling on Christians to boycott Disney for extending benefits to "domestic partners".
- Jerry Falwell, adulterer, criticizing "Hustler" magazine.
- Ronald Reagan failing to account for the AIDS epidemic, since HIV was "God's punishment to gays", or, "the Gay Measles".
What? This is all during my lifetime, and I've not lived that long.
Many non-Christians agree that the Genesis story belongs in schools. Right alongside a diverse assortment of creation tales from other religions around the world as part of a social studies curriculum. But it turns out that many Creationists want their ascientific assertions to be taught as scientific fact.
I can't recall ever being taught that evolution was pure fact. I think that assertion is a myth invented by desperate Creationists. I've always known that the theory is incomplete. However, I have yet to see any other theory which comes close to describing what takes place in the world to the same degree of accuracy.
And on that note, Christians ought to cease treating the Theory of Evolution and the scientific process itself as closed and finished processes. I realize that no truly new knowledge about God has emerged for two-thousand years or so, but the scientific method is an unfinished process, and its data set will continue to grow so long as there are people to observe things, and things for people to observe.
Seriously--when you wake up tomorrow, will there be a new chapter in the Bible, teaching us what we didn't know about God before? No.
When you wake up tomorrow, will there be new scientific information teaching us what we didn't know about the Universe before? Yes.
Do you see how those conditions are different?
Or when someone insists that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because of some tracks in the floodplain in Texas: What would you like me to think when a Creationist tells me that "erosion" is too wildly speculative a factor to include in any theory explaining the proximity of these tracks? I don't have to leave the house to see erosion taking place. But apparently, erosion--and especially in a floodplain--is too rare an effect to be included in any hypothesis? Come on ....
And I realize that these people I'm describing must sound like complete idiots to you. But here's the kicker: They all identify themselves as Christians, and cite their faith as one of their motivations.
So the question, then, becomes: "What am I supposed to think of all this?"
Really. Seriously.
29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Jew was about using salt or sand on the roads in winter. 29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Muslim was about who started the fight with the Sikhs in India. 29 years, and the worst disputes I have with atheists are largely existentialist and matters of human integrity. 29 years, and Christians have constantly been condemning me and many others for the things that have taught us and helped build our characters and capabilities.
In terms of the evangelical assertion in my prior post, I think I can stand by it. Fundamentalism turns intelligent people off. Why? They're tired of being abused by Christians. If salvation turns a person into a prig like Falwell, why would anyone take the offer?
thanx,
Tiassa
Disciple of Jesus
Registered Senior Member
So Very True
Disciple of Jesus
Registered Senior Member
You're Welcome and Amen!
New Life -
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. When I speak of revival, I'm referring to an individual or "personal revival of Faith" amongst true-Christians, that when put into practice would enable non-believers to recognize the obvious difference between those whom simply profess Christianity and those who indeed follow and share It's teachings. Also, doing so would then in turn create the unity you speak of.
May God bless you with His graces -
Disciple of Jesus
New Life -
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. When I speak of revival, I'm referring to an individual or "personal revival of Faith" amongst true-Christians, that when put into practice would enable non-believers to recognize the obvious difference between those whom simply profess Christianity and those who indeed follow and share It's teachings. Also, doing so would then in turn create the unity you speak of.
May God bless you with His graces -
Disciple of Jesus
Are we not all brother an sisters. Remember the prodigal son.
If you have a thinking mind it is not hard do see. Though many "False believers" claim to be the "True believers". It is all subject to individuality. Unity will not come with out acceptance of the individual. The Idea of true and false believers will only hinder yourselves on your respective paths. Unity comes through acceptance of differences not a Faith Revival. All are not build the same all will not believe in the same way. How do you know the heart of the faithfull. One may appear to have faith but have none at the core of his being but one who appears to have little faith may in the end be the most faithful.
I am sorry I do not understand why you would want exclusive unity. Accept the goats live with the goats love the goats that is the way to unity. How can you have true faith or have your faith tested for that matter if you remove all that would challenge it. How would you learn those valuable lessons of faith? Even if one doesn not believe in the same manner as you, you may learn an invaluable lesson from them. It is all what you are receptive to.
Do you really have to have effort to follow the "way of Christ". TO my perception I though it was the manifestation of all that which is good inside you. That good is an inherent part of you so why would you need to create strife and seperate you from that goodness. To attain it is to be yourself accept who you are. Only the can you have genuine love affection, or even faith. If you are beside yourself in your faith it will not be true faith. How can you have true faith unless you are at one wiht yourself and existance?
Even if you believe yourself that you are right. Do not act in egotisme by labeling people and calling them not believers. Act with humility even if you believe yourself to be right. You close your mind and heart and act out of selfish arrogance.
Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.
That statement seems subjective.
Actually, it's Romans 15:5 and Matthew 7:17-19. And yes, it is subjective. But from a Christian paradigm (and some others) the knowledge of whether the fruit is good or not will be provided to you.
Clearly, the fundies do the opposite of creating healing and unity in American society, or in the church. Anyone who is familiar with the dynamics of the Southern Babtist Convention over the last 30 years would have trouble arguing this point.
Re: Losing ground
[edited for grammer and missing words]
I agree with this, but I think the major force for this dynamic is coming from within the conservative christian movement rather than the liberal institutions of non-seminary higher education. After all - only Nixon could go to China.
[edited for grammer and missing words]
I am not debating whethere you know or not. What struck me is that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree. It seems to me that it can. Good fruit cannot grow on a bad tree. To me it seems that it can. What tree it is spawned from is usually where it ends up but not the rule.