We’re not mad at God. If we’re mad we’re mad with religion and its inability to mind its own damn business.
Oh, and FTR: Hail Satan! Hail Adrian!
George Orwell once described one of his novel characters as “an atheist, the sort who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him.” We must admit, that type does exist. And we should also admit that such a POV is actually as defensible as anything in religion or skepticism.
IIRC, C. S. Lewis wrote somewhere of his own atheist period that he was “angry at God for not existing.”
If that’s true, that’s hilarious.
In Terry Pratchett’s The Nation, Mau having lost faith in the gods that allowed the tsunami to destroy his people, a priest tells him that what Mau really wants is for the gods to exist just enough that he can be mad at them for not existing.
No. Most all Christians are strongly in support of pretty much any education, even exclusively secular education. My own parents, Christian fundamentalists, very much favored me going to university, and didn’t even think twice about it being a secular school. (When I came to accept evolution and mainstream geology as a result of my education there, we had a few words about it on more than one occasion, but it’s not like they ever thought that the university system itself was remotely bad.)
The context of that passage is that Paul was advising the Corinthian believers to be humble, and not put their faith in various “wise” church leaders. He was just trying to say that true wisdom comes only from God. Didn’t have anything to do with the value of education or knowledge.
No idea. I’m not a Jew, and know very little about Jewish culture.
No one’s saying that it’s Christian doctrine.
We’re just saying that it’s likely a fair representation of what Lewis personally believed, as an individual Christian.
As Dio has already pointed out, Lewis used his fiction as a vehicle for expressing his own thoughts and arguments. His characters, while clearly fictional, were mouthpieces for those ideas. In Screwtape, the devils gave voice to Lewis’ interpretation of skeptical/humanist philosophies.
No. Religious positions are inherently less defensible than skeptical positions. And “I believe in God, but dislike him” is very much a religious position, or at least a position that assumes the supernatural.
OK, not an expert here by any means, which is why I am asking - if Christian dogma and leadership is universally in favor of earthly (for lack of a better word) education, why do Jesuits stand out in this regard?
And why are there so many anti-science dogmatic concerns (to be polite) among Christians? I read them as though they are threatened, and thus at least some knowledge should neither be taught nor sought, and when encountered, must be torn down or demonized.
That wasn’t a question about Jewish culture, it was a question about Christian views and actions regarding Jews through the ages. Sorry it was unclear.
I came to a Pit Party and a GD thread broke out.
Which is why I still love the Dope after all these years.
The Master (and no, I don’t mean Satan):
and the update:
I never get involved in god-related threads because to me, it’s like talking/discussing/arguing about the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Too much WTF? for me to process. I read this one because I too have a co-worker who is really religious and was appalled when she found out (through another co-worker) I’m an atheist. She bugged me and bugged me about Jesus and god and going to church until I put my foot down and read her the riot act about the workplace not being the appropriate place to witness. It was an intense confrontation, but now we’re cordial. She doesn’t pester me anymore about going to her church, and I keep quiet about my atheism. I do throw away the leaflets she sometimes leaves in the break room though.
Your son is very cool!
Did she know who Xenu was?
I didn’t say that Christian leaders or doctrine are “universally in favor of earthly education.” I said that most Christians don’t at all oppose education, even if it’s secular.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t know enough about Jesuitism to answer your follow-up question, either.
Yes, some Christians, especially those who read the Bible literally, are indeed threatened by the findings of some areas of secular science. It has been my experience, though, that they don’t generally place the blame on “Science”–they place the blame on secularists who (in their eyes) uphold science as more authoritative than their scriptures. (Which it is, of course. ;)) Or on those who distort science for diabolical ends. :rolleyes:
Further, even young-earth creationists–arguably the most literalistic, stereotypically “anti-science” of all Christians–generally tend to regard science positively; they just happen to think that it has been twisted and misconstrued by those evil, evil evolutionists! :rolleyes:
Umm…when you say that Jews have a “propensity towards education for education’s sake,” you’re making a characterization about their culture. Whether it’s a true and valid characterization or not, I simply don’t know (although it seems like an awfully big, stereotypical assumption, to me). So I can’t answer the question because it contains a working assumption that I just can’t speak to.
FYI, FWIW: In case you were wondering, I’m not a Christian. I’m an atheist who was raised as a Christian, and who learned a great deal about Christianity during those years. So I’m only telling you what they believe, not what I believe.
I’ve never come across that position before, not criticizing it, but can you point to it? My experience is that YEC folks have a very thin understanding of science, at best, and so if they regard it positively, that is still not even the real thing. Are there YEC web sites that contain positive accurate representations of science (meaning the scientific method) rather than pseudoscience?
Kinda gathered that 
Sure. Google “creation science” and observe how many creationist websites and organizations want to assume the mantle of science. They generally respect the methodology and what science can achieve, insofar as they understand it; they just think most “secular” science (especially evolution, geology, physics/astronomy, and climate change research) has been perverted, twisted, whatever, by evil commie-faggot-abortionist-puppy-kicking-evolutionists.
Some examples:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/
This is true. I’m not saying that they know and understand and support real scientific methodology and theories. I’m saying that as far as they [wrongly] understand what science is, they generally favor it and try desperately to appropriate its epistemic utility and rhetorical caché. Even creationists acknowledge science’s immense explanatory and innovative power, which is precisely why they have to invent some scapegoat explanation for why science says things that they really don’t like–it’s the fault of those evil modern atheist scientISTS, dontcha know.
Not in my experience. Otherwise they wouldn’t be creationists. 
Seriously, though, many creationists can summarize the scientific method pretty well, but they invariably fail to see how that’s vastly different from what they’re actually doing. There’s a real cognitive disconnect at work.
In a larger sense, in this discussion, keep in mind that “most Christians” and “creationists” are NOT necessarily synonyms.
I have done that many times, never found one that was close to real science.
sts.
Seen that one before. Pure pseudo science, see: What Is Science? | Answers in Genesis
More textbook pseudoscience: Evidence from the Physical Sciences | The Institute for Creation Research
Those are just examples from those sites, they are awful! Really each site is its own cite There is nothing scientific written on either site, period.
So they favor there own extensive PR efforts that are designed ot confuse and then mislead by mimicry? Color me shocked.
But none of it is science. Absolutely none. Propagandish mimickry, but not science.
Right, science is a threat to their world and aferworld view, and rather than adapt their view, there is an attempt to coopt the threat and suck it into Christianity itself. That’s been a good strategy from what I know for 2000 years, can’t blame them trotting it out again, but lets not mistake marketing FUD for science.
I understand that. But the ones who are driving to coopt science into Christianity are also driving to coopt our secular government into a Christian theocracy too. Or at least there is a lot of overlap.
Which brings me back to that quote from Matthew I think it was above (sorry too lazy to look right now) regarding the lack of value of education. The same groups have been working hard to bring down the level of education and what is taught, witness the Kansas State School Board Science curriculum debacle. It only will take an overlapping generation or two of deliberately uneducated or undereducated masses to undermine our government and our knowledge economy.
Not4e that you never see these churches or groups arguing for MORE science to be taught, or even the same amount. Always less, mixed in with pseudoscience.
I’d have to read the books to be sure, but people make a strong case this is what Lewis really believed. And here I was crediting him with more cleverness than that, creating devils who buy their own bullshit, who can’t help be fooled (and whose readers can’t help notice the error) in Lewis’ cleverly flawed points. Nope! Just flawed!
I haven’t looked into Lewis very much. If this kind of stuff is what he really, really believes about non-Christians, well hats off to Brain Glutton for referencing it in this Pit thread and, Screwtape is apparently the Clan of the Cave Bear of philosophy.
Agreed. That said, many times the labels people apply to themselves are several miles off: I’ve known people who were agnostic but self-labeled atheist (some for simplicity, as they’ve gotten sick of explaining the difference to the ignorant; some out of ignorance), and people who were anti-God, anti-RCC, anti-priests or anti-organized religion but labeled themselves atheists out of ignorance (some conflated the terms, some just don’t think that deep) or in order to anger those people they themselves were angry with.
alice, different religious orders follow different callings. The Jesuits happen to have “extending scholarship and knowledge in all fields and at all levels” among their callings (this isn’t any kind of direct quote, but I have vague memories that this stems from Loyola’s notion that better understanding of nature leads to better understanding of its Creator and of our own role within it); most other educational orders work either with younger people or in more-specific fields (there are many dedicated to children and youth, many dedicated to teaching trades). Some which have ended up having universities got there when trades schools went college-level (this is often the case with the Brothers of Sales, my brother attended one of those): the first six Jesuits met while attending the Sorbonne and the order has always worked at all educational levels - and they were all the kind of guy who will “argue theology with God”, which is also the kind of people they attract. Opus Dei also works at all levels, but they’re much more recent, less extended and have a socially-backwards agenda which isn’t a good fit for inquisitive minds (questioning “current wisdom” is a lot easier when you’re in a situation in which it’s ok to question your superiors - SJ- than in one where you’re supposed to stare at the floor if one of them is in the room -OD).