What books? Hell, how about my whole damned bookshelf! (Including the Terry Pratchett books!)
OK, to get a little more specific (in no order other than how they happen to be on my shelves) :
The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe by Michael Shermer Almost Everyone’s Guide to Science by John Gribbin
Everything Richard Dawkins has ever written. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould
Umm, Manhattan, what I have a problem with her, is the “baby murdering” thing, as if that was the only thing that “Y” di, or seemed to do a great deal. In fact, since you, and many others do not believe that the plaques of Egypt happened (and i do not accept they happened, exactly as in the Bible), why do you accuse someones God of a crime you do not beleive even happened?
Yes, you are attacking the “literalists” her, but you are also attacking the “literalists” GOD, who happens to be the same being that Jews, Muslims, and us much more liberal Christians beleive in.
Yes, a literal reading if the Bible will show some deaths of children by the hand of G-d. Roosevelt, Churchill, & Eisenhower, by bombing cities in WWII, killed infants also. Would you call them Babymurderers"- to the exclusion of anything else they did.
This hate speech is unworthy of GD, the SDMB, and especially of YOU.
'Scuse me, pardon me, pardon me. Responding to the OP, here, don’t mind me.
Robert Pennock’s Tower of Babel : The Evidence Against the New Creationism is one of the best books I’ve read in the past year. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in what the newest brands of evangelicals and fundamentalists are and how they think of the C/E debate. And, of course, some extremely sound refutation, mostly on a philosophical level rather than specifics.
I tried to make it clear that they (literalists) are worshipping a being whom they believe had done that, and that such a stance would call upon one to lie a lot (or admit to worshipping evil). To the extent I failed in that quest, I apologize. (Additionally, I apologize to Alessan for my unnecessarily snippy response earlier.) If one’s faith does not include a belief that these things actually occurred as described in the Bible, than obviously one’s God becomes a better being, not requiring a bunch of lies to defend.
I disagree with your premise. Having read these boards for a while, I have come to the conclusion that the “God” followed by literalists is not in fact the same God worshipped by liberal Christians and others. One’s understanding of God, if one has one, comes from the heart. If one’s heart believes that the God one worships runs around killing babies, I submit that that person worships an entirely different entity than someone who believe otherwise.
The thing is, the God of the literalists has such a fetish for it. Not only in Egypt. My Bible is at home, but which Prophet did those kids razz so badly that God killed all the kids in the town? And when God gave Joseph the heads-up to get out of Dodge before Herod came and killed all the male babies under two years old, would it really have been that much of an imposition if he had let some of the other dads in town know, too?
To me, it’s all myth. To others, it’s allegory. Both of those things make sense to me – the death of a child is so heartbreaking that it forms the basis for much mythology. But again, if someone believes that God actually did those things and still chooses to worship that being, well, than I submit that I’m not the one guilty of hate speech.
I don’t remember Churchill’s speech on “killing all the firstborn” of Germany. Maybe I should re-read my history.
Seriously, the difference between an act of war and an act of divine child-specific smiting seems pretty obvious to me. I think baby-killing is a pretty harsh thing to bring up, but the fact remains that it is in the Bible – in multiple places.
The challenge to any Christian belief set which holds any of the various “fantastic” elements of the Bible as true because they were reported in the Bible is, in my opinion, that they must take the rest of the Bible as well, without excising or omitting the uncomfortable parts.
And to those who state that there are NO “the Bible is absolutely true” literalists out there, I must inform you that you are sadly mistaken. I was under their tutelage for several years as a youth and ostracized for even questioning the mechanics of the flood or the origins of dinosaur fossils. I had classmates look at me in horror when I suggested that perhaps God had created evolution. I had teachers play me rock n’ roll records backwards and tell me that the devil was speaking and show me models of the earth with a 40-mile layer of clouds waiting to rain down in a Great Flood.
Scupper, I had no intention of making light of your experience and that of others like you. My point was that even on their own terms the “total literalists” fail to live up to their claims. I know of only one Baptist, for example, who believes Jesus spoke literally when He held up the bread and wine at the Last Supper and spoke what are now called “the words of institution” about them being His Body and Blood. And “every word is verbatim inspired by the Holy Spirit” doesn’t take into account the passage where Paul contrasts a “teaching from the Lord” with his own advice (II Corinthians, IIRC) or the place in Titus where Paul (or an author pretending to be him, on some theories) indulges in a little witty wordplay with his younger friend and protege: “‘All Cretans are liars’ and we know this is true since one of their own poets said as much.” This is of course a paradox, in which it is true only if it is false, and false only if it is true.
You do have my apologies for how you took my comments – I’ve dealt with literalists before, but never where I had it forced on me as you did. And I hope you’ll accept the fact that I would not belittle what you went through. I trust you see now what I intended my comments to mean.
My problem was with the statement that there is no one who expects the monsters from Revelations to show up exactly as described and that there is no one who thinks that Jesus said the exact words in the Bible exactly as the King James version presents them, etc., because that’s simply not true. They may be a minority, they may be looked down upon by more “reasonable” Christians, but they do exist.
And not all of them are ignorant and easily dismissed. I have had unpleasant encounters with at least one notable, intelligent individual (a certain Biology teacher) who would go to the mat for the infalliable Book. To this day, calling up the memory of his face gives me the willies. And he was typical of the instructors I suffered through.
(And lest anyone think that I suffered in some cliche’ Bible Belt backwater, my term in religious school was spent in Camarillo, California.)
I don’t know what tradition produces these people, as I was too young, ignorant, and indoctrinated to understand that there was more than one “Christianity.” (I didn’t even know what the word “Catholic” meant or who the Pope was.)The only thing I do know is that, if any of them believed that any parts of the Bible were not literally true they didn’t tell me about it.
That said, I understand that you aren’t a literalist and don’t defend their belief. My reaction comes mainly from this not being the first time that strict literalists have been kind of dismissed as a semi-mythical beast on the SDMB.
On the contrary, it’s not a straw-man at all. To wit:
**
Maybe I missed something, but has anyone here said that fundies do expect this?
Interpret the Bible however you like, but as a young born-again I thought that Jesus really walked on water and that the whole shepherd thing was literal, historical truth. Bear in mind that I wasn’t even a Biblical literalist- I was an evolutionist- but I would have thought at the time that your beliefs were so watered-down as to barely qualify you as a Christian, as would have all the creationists around me. How can it be a “straw man” to say that fundies think Jesus really walked on water, when they also believe in a literal reading of Genesis?
Earlier you were complaining, in a different thread, about how atheists have a “straw man” definition of faith as being “belief without evidence.” Needless to say, this isn’t a straw man: plenty of people really do define faith that way.
I have this image in my head of a blurred film of Jack Chick in the forest, hunched over and looking over his shoulder at the cameraman before loping off…
BTW, would folks here mind if I compiled a list of these books for my webpage?
Do you have any proof or cites for these arguements/ Do you have any documented evidence that “fundies” are ignorant. ie less well educated? Any evidence, and proof, that fundamentalists- as a group- don’t know much about evolution? Any solid, first hand cites?
I am speaking from personal experience, and I’m sure that most people here would agree with me. After all, think of people like FriendofGod or Pashley. For that matter, this thread was started in response to jenkinsfan’s rehashing of the same tired old chestnuts. Why do you ask?
Yes, yes, and yes! Look through the archives for a thread that Satan started, based on one of my posts in another thread, about how religion and intelligence/education have a definitely negative correlation. If you want some more evidence that I didn’t cite the first time, here it is:
From the Religious Tolerance website:
This page indicates that people with university educations are more likely to accept evolution than those without. Now a Bachelor’s degree does not guarantee specific knowlege about evolution, but generally people with college degrees know more about things in general than the non-college educated (no anecdotal exceptions, please). So basically, the more you know, the more likely you are to accept the best theory that science has to offer. What a surprise.
There’s also evidence that people with university educations are less likely to accept the inerrancy of the Bible, i.e. be fundamentalists. Unfortunately, I can’t locate a reference at the moment.
But in general, the answer to your question is an unqualified yes: statistically, people who hold fundamentalist religious beliefs are less likely to be educated, and therefore more likely to be ignorant, than non-fundamentalists.
As cecil once said “We don’t take votes on the facts”. It does not matter how many folks agree with you, in order to support your assertions you need to back them up with sources & cites. Please do so. Or back down & admit you were wrong.
Well, I saw a car belonging to an elderly Fundie couple once, and it had a bumper sticker that said, “Evolution is when scientists make monkeys out of themselves.” And as we all know, they do not make monkeys of themselves – they make chimpanzees’-near-relatives out of themselves. And if that’s not a solid, well-researched study showing that Fundamentalists as a group don’t know much about evolution, I don’t know what is.
Yes, we may very well have evolved from other animals, and I find that a lot more humbling than knowing that some God wants to kick my ass. Very interesting book.
The point of the OP isn’t to prove that fundies are ignorant. It’s to ask for book suggestions. And even if I don’t have cites, I don’t have to switch to the opposite opinion (ie, admit I am wrong) unless someone provides evidence for the opposite opinion. At best, I would have to admit that the point is unproven, or that I am unable to form an educated opinion on the subject at present.
It would be kind of silly for me to admit I’m wrong when Opus is proving me right, no?
You have repeatedly stated that the Internet Infidels twisted Kenyon’s work out of context- you even once said that she must be spinning in her grave because of their lies. Your accusations have now been shown to be false, and it has been proven conclusively that your position could only stand so long as you quoted the Infidels out of context and twisted their views. Have you admitted that you are wrong? If not, then aren’t you being a little hypocritical? (Given the circumstances, perhaps I should ask: aren’t you being a little more hypocritical?)
Do you believe that fundamentalists are as well educated as non-fundies? Better educated? I would remind you that you have stated in no uncertain terms that you find it “puerile” to attack someone’s position without offering one of your own.
I as much “conceded” the current debate to gaudere, as her sites were better than mine. I do leave open the chance of a further bout once i can re-marshall some better cites- ie, i have “lost the battle, but do not concede the War”.
However, i am just asking you to do what you demanded & hounded me to do. So, if your behavior was correct, then you should gladly list great cites that prove your point. But you are not going to are you? Is this not a LOT hypocritical? It is SO much easier for you to attack & hound others, isn’t it? Not very happy when the shoes on the other foot, is it? Well, come on stop “weasleing” and start with them cites.
Next, Opus is NOT you, nor is his cite attributed. In any case, having less college degree is not the same as being “ignorant”. You can be very well educated with a sheepskin.
The point of the other OP was not to prove that “infidels” was biased- everyone agreed it was. But you had to turn it into a “prove DITWD is wrong” thread. Well, I am turning this into a “prove Ben is wrong thread”- and so far i am winning.
My quote is from http://www.charismanews.com/
I’ll have to do a search on the website to find out specifically what article it came from.
DITWD, if you have a better way to measure ignorance, I’d love to see it. We have to come up with some sort of gauge. Short of giving everyone a multiple choice test over the phone to see what they know, a college education is the most reliable test of knowledge available.
for the sarcasm-impaired)