[bung]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

I really wouldn't call those people a large portion of mainstream christianity. Not that I don't think a large portion of mainstream christianity have silly beliefs (like gays can't get married) but the earth being flat is just beyond silly. Even ignoring scientific proof and photographs from space, there are parts of the Bible that actually call the earth a sphere.

Denying humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and denying gays the right to marry are only very, very slightly less ridiculous, stupid, and silly than believing the Earth is flat (thankfully this last belief has significantly declined). Both claims are in direct contradiction with everything we know about science and any defensible claims in ethics, as is the claim that the Earth is flat. There's also, to make a very conservative estimate, probably at the absolute least 30% of Americans, or like 93 million people, who hold both views (although I bet it's closer 40%). That's a pretty significant portion advocating patently indefensible, absurd, and pernicious claims. So I stand by my assertion that a large portion of mainstream American Christians create a disturbing intellectual climate. As for the (debatable) claim that the Bible actually promotes a spherical understanding of the Earth, it may or it may not, but I'll grant you that it does. That doesn't change anything except that some Christians have historically managed to interpret their holy book incorrectly. A lot of mainstream Christianity is still explicitly anti-evidence/knowledge/coherent argument. I think you must agree with me here, as I don't feel this is really a contentious claim.

Originally Posted by jawstheme

I agree with all of this. Valid findings and arguments are consistently fought with fallacious arguments in all walks of life. You see total free market ideologies constantly dismissing weaknesses as a result of government intervention, where government intervention is often just mitigating the damages having a completely free market in certain areas is causing.
Faiths that rely on literal Biblical interpretations also experience this cognitive dissonance when confronted with scientific facts (i.e. the Earth is 10,000 years old) so they will cling to any explanation that claims to refute the findings, no matter how silly it is, to keep their faith valid.
I think I'm just expanding on what you're saying.

I sort of agree with you here. However, you must admit that even socialists and Marxists are consistently fighting valid findings with fallacious arguments on occasion, if we take your claim that "Valid findings and arguments are consistently fought with fallacious arguments in all walks of life." But I don't think you want to admit that. Rather, I think what you really mean is that any ideology is automatically biased in favor of itself by virtue of a person choosing to hold it, and any ideology or argument that contradicts it as seen to be in some way fallacious--either because of poor argument, lack of scientific rigor, incomplete weighing of evidence, etc. Adherents of total free market ideologies may argue against valid findings (and one may say that they give terribly poor arguments), but they do one vital thing that fundamentalist Christians don't. They don't fall back on faith and simply refuse to try to support their position, or believe that their position doesn't really need support. The fundamentalist can simply ignore evidence, good argument, scientific rigor, whatever they like. And they can do this all the time in any situation in which something contradicts their view, because they have faith. And faith, for many Christians, is not just belief without evidence, but belief in the face of contrary evidence. And they actually raise this idea of faith to the level of a great virtue.

[richter915]

jawstheme actually pointed out the same point (regarding non-religious groups) in an earlier post and he's absolutely right. As I said, any organization with a commonly held goal will likely have to discriminately distribute knowledge and information in order to achieve their means. Further, I agree with your idea that relative to other ideologies, religious organizations require a blind "leap of faith" on many of their beliefs. This leads to simply refuting evidence without any significant counter. This is where my problem lies, they push young minds into making such a leap which is extremely (in my opinion) deleterious to thinking.

Honestly, I see that as a violation of human rights.

[jawstheme]

Originally Posted by bung

. Adherents of total free market ideologies may argue against valid findings (and one may say that they give terribly poor arguments), but they do one vital thing that fundamentalist Christians don't. They don't fall back on faith and simply refuse to try to support their position, or believe that their position doesn't really need support. The fundamentalist can simply ignore evidence, good argument, scientific rigor, whatever they like. And they can do this all the time in any situation in which something contradicts their view, because they have faith. And faith, for many Christians, is not just belief without evidence, but belief in the face of contrary evidence. And they actually raise this idea of faith to the level of a great virtue.

I agree with you on all points except this one, so I'll only quote it. I think if you take any fundamentalists claim they will point to what they think is evidence.
Evidence the earth is 10,000 years old:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
Evidence against evolution and for creation: http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

Even fundamentalists don't just rely on faith alone. They do however cling to fallacious and easily dismissed arguments because their faith is too important to them, and because those arguments are expressed with as much, often more, confidence and positivity than scientific arguments. Simple cognitive dissonance at work.
And I do agree that ultimately faith is believed by most religious people to be virtuous. I think that is part of what drives them to cling toward arguments that reinforce their faith, rather than their doubt.

[dtrzcin]

Something relevant to the discussion here concerning the fundamentalist approach from Peter Rollins's The Fidelity of Betrayal:

Quote:

Modern inerrancy:

. . . I want to avoid getting caught up in the debates that take place within biblical criticism. These debates relate to issues such as how editors have forged certain parts of the Bible from a variety of older sources and explorations into the various ideological clashes being played out within the pages of the text. These are interesting questions to explore and draw us into the world of formal biblical studies as well as the modernistic claims of those who affirm biblical inerrancy. It is worth noting that both biblical criticism and apologists for the idea of inerrancy are primarily concerned with the rational legitimacy of the text when viewed as a description of factual claims. While biblical criticism examines these claims without presupposing that the words are divinely given, the approach of the modern inerrancy writers is one that affirms the absolute factual accuracy of the text and then seeks to explain away any conflicts. While these two approaches may seem diametrically opposed, those who advocate the inerrancy of Scriptures today have actually been profoundly influenced by the thinking that gave birth to the modern, critical disciplines. While those who advocate biblical inerrancy reject many of the findings of historical criticism, they still attempt to justify their own claims via the rational approach that historical criticism also employs. In doing so the fundamentalist is claiming that the truth of the Bible is tied up with factual claims that can be intellectually defended. As such, those institutions that advocate biblical inerrancy expend a great deal of time and energy attempting to offer explanations that will effectively reconcile any problems that they are presented with in the Bible. Yet it is this very process of rational justification that makes fundamentalism a very modern phenomenon, one that sets it at odds with the more ancient tradition of inerrancy found within the Church.

[bung]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

I agree with you on all points except this one, so I'll only quote it. I think if you take any fundamentalists claim they will point to what they think is evidence.
Evidence the earth is 10,000 years old:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
Evidence against evolution and for creation: http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

Even fundamentalists don't just rely on faith alone. They do however cling to fallacious and easily dismissed arguments because their faith is too important to them, and because those arguments are expressed with as much, often more, confidence and positivity than scientific arguments. Simple cognitive dissonance at work.
And I do agree that ultimately faith is believed by most religious people to be virtuous. I think that is part of what drives them to cling toward arguments that reinforce their faith, rather than their doubt.

Yeah, you're correct here. The more (and I use this word in the loosest sense imaginable) "sophisticated" fundamentalists will employ things that resemble arguments. I guess I was more referring to the typical person you may talk to that believes in those claims. This is mostly based on my own experience, which isn't the best evidence, I admit, but on numerous occasions when I've talked to people who don't accept evolution, or who believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old, they ultimately fall back on faith when pressed. They say foolish things like, "Humans couldn't have come from monkeys, because the Bible says that God created man in His own image, as is. And I have faith that the Bible is the word of God." Or, in the end, it's always a similar assertion for anything ranging from gay marriage to the age of the Earth. And since they don't have the slightest idea how natural selection actually operates, or why we know the Earth is much older than 10,000 years, they can't even begin to provide any argument against them. My own inkling is that they often remain purposefully ignorant of any evidence to the contrary because of, like you said, the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. Although I grew up in rural Minnesota in a pretty religious community, I can't help but think a lot of fundamentalists would say the same thing anywhere in the United States, and that the ones who actually use arguments similar to the ones in the links you provided are in the minority.

I think it's also worthwhile to point out that even for the "sophisticated" fundamentalist the faith comes first, prior to any rationalization or "argument" against modern knowledge. That is, they aren't attempting to reason from any sort of "argument" or "evidence" and then concluding that evolution isn't true or that the earth is actually 10,000 years old. But, instead, they first have faith in these positions, and when someone presses them only then are they forced to provide some feeble ad hoc rationalization. This leads me to believe that faith is, indeed, mostly what they rely on.

[Nevuk]

Land over baptist is like the case study on Poe's law

[jawstheme]

lol

[The Personist]

oh boy "human rights" what nonsensical liberal bullshit will this thread trot out next

me and Foucault chilling in the corner thinking you're all ridiculous

[sjb2k1]

good to see you haven't changed, guy!

[Simulcast]

It was Derrida before... I wonder who it will be 6 months from now.

[rawesome]

"Ugh, you guys are so lame. I've skimmed the Wiki page for [insert famous philosopher] and [insert random opinion that apparently doesn't have to be backed up or argued after name-dropping that famous philosopher]."

[JoshKilpatrickL]

I think it's funny when people try to state everything in science as a fact hah

[rawesome]

Originally Posted by JoshKilpatrickL

I think it's funny when people try to state everything in science as a fact hah

It's always cringeworthy when people say shit like this.

[JoshKilpatrickL]

Originally Posted by rawesome

It's always cringeworthy when people say shit like this.

I know, right.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. Well I say that there are some things we don't wanna know. Important things!