People have not done any of this – at least not if they knew what they were talking about. Biological evolution has no application to the question of whether God exists, nor does it have anything to say about what does or does not warrant “extermination.”
Now you seem to be trying to argue that ID is a philosphical or “cultural” outlook, but its proponents actively deny that it entails any kind of religious or philosophical ideology and aggressively try to assert that it’s purely scientific that has no application to anything but biology. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to say that ID has any application outside of bioligy, then you’re admitting that its proponents are liars. If you think it has application ONLY to biology then you have to admit that it’s a huge load of crap and Medved is a moron for trying to pimp it. Which is it?
You really think that evangelicals who think Jews won’t go to Heaven are anti-semites? How exactly do you define anti-semitism? Evangelicals feel anyone who isn’t “born again” isn’t going to Heaven, be they Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Their theology has no special animus towards Jews. They feel towards Jews the same way they feel towards anyone who does not share their theology. How is that anti-semitism?
No application? I’d say it doesn’t disprove God, but its certainly relevant to arguments against his existence. Certainly it has an application in convincing most people that the story of Genesis can’t be literally true. Which helps disprove at least one type of God, the one believed by biblical literaists
But more importantly in this day and age, and I think the main reason why some religious people have a problem with evolution, is while it may not disprove God, it does knock down a major argument for his existence. Speaking personally, when I was very young and hadn’t heard much about evolution, the complexity of life seemed a very convincing argument for God. Later I learned about evolution, which seemed a more likely scenario to me, and while it wasn’t the sole reason for my loosing faith, it knocked down a major reason for my belief, and I decided I was an agnostic shortly afterwards. I seriously doubt my experience is unique, indeed I’d be willing to bet a large number of athiests are made in grade school science classrooms.
Again, evolution doesn’t disprove God, but I think that in many peoples minds, it does make him unnecessary.
You really think we were supposed to infer that from your earlier post?
“Science” cannot, by definition, intrude on such discussions. That is what “pseudoscience” is.
Science has nothing to say about God. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Anyone who tries to apply science to God has, by definition, stepped into pseudoscience land. And Dawkins doesn’t try to disprove God. He simply says there is no evidence that God exists. And he’s right. If you want to believe, fine. But don’t pretend there is anything rational about that belief, or that there is some evidence that God exists.
Now, a study of science can lead one to atheism. In more or less happened in my case (although it happened before I officially started to study science). It especially can lead to a loss of faith in organized religion, even if one still believes in some Supreme Being. But that’s not the fault of science. That’s the fault of (organized) religion-- trying to make claims about the physical world that simply aren’t verifiable.
God, in this context ≠ “the Judeo-Christian” God. Evolution might cast some doubt on Christianity (especially if you’re a Biblical Literalist), but there are religions that can be perfectly compatible with evolution.
Yeah, I know. But, frankly, Christianity isn’t compatible with science. Christianity requires that we believe God interacts with the physical world. You can try and bluff your way through that if you like, but it just doesn’t fly, scientifically.
Science and pseudoscience are not the same thing - they are generally opposites. Evolution is a science. Eugenics, creationism, and intelligent design are pseudosciences - ideological programs disguised under appropriated scientific jargon.
There’s nothing wrong with introducing science into a discussion. In fact, there’s plenty of ongoing discussions that would benefit from more science.
Well, you can call it Christian Supremacy if you’d prefer but it’s still bigoted and yes, it’s still anti-semitic because it dehumanizes people based on their ethnicity. You can’t say in one breath that you believe a group of people is unGodly scum who deserves to be tortured forever (FOREVER!) for their cultural heritage and then say on the other hand that you don’t have any animosity towards them.
I guess if you think it’s better to say that their bigotry is universal rather than specifically targeted towards Jews, then fine. They are still profoundly disrespectul and contmptuous of Judaism as a religion though. They acn’t honestly say they respect people who they fervently believe deserve to have the flesh burned from their bodies over and over again for all eternity.
Cite that they are called “unGodly scum”? But sure you can say they will burn in hell and not have any animosty towards them. You might call it something like “hate the sin, love the sinner”.
And that would be a cite that all evangelicals call them that, not just some. You have made no distinction thus far between different evangelical groups, much less individual evangelicals.
While I’m at it. their unctuous, disingenuous, self-serving support of Israel should never be mistaken for support or respect for Judaism. They just think they have to rebuild the Temple to make Jesus comes back. After that, they think Jesus will incinerate the Jews.
It’s not bigotry to think that your religion will save you, but not someone who isn’t a believer. You’d be a bigot if you advocating persecution of other religions, but it’s unclear to me that all evangelicals fall in that group. I wouldn’t call Bush a bigot, for example, and he’s an evangelical. (I’d call him lots of other things, but not a bigot.)
The descent started a long time ago but it hit its last nadir in the summer.
From the blog of professional douchebag Hugh Hewitt.President Bush invited ten talk hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today --Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won’t be quoting the president.
My cite that they hold that belief proceeds necessarily from the belief that they will go to Hell. If they’re going to Hell, they must be evil.
No, you can’t say that at all. You can’t say someone DESERVES to be tortured for all eternity and then say you don’t have any animosity towards them. If you believe they’re going to hell, then you have to believe it is JUST for them to go to Hell. If you believe it is JUST for them to go to Hell then it’s disingenuous beyond all words to say you don’t hate them.
I didn’t say 'all evangelicals." I was responding specifically to Renob’s statements about “evangelicals who don’t believe Jews go to heaven.” Anyone who believes Jews DESERVE to be burned in eternal flames for being (religious) Jews has no credibility when they say they don’t hate Jews. You can’t simultaneously respect someone’s beliefs and think they deserve to be eternally tortured for them;. A belief that Jews go to Hell is not some innocuous, harmless, incidental little trifle. Not if you really think about it.
For the record, a growing number of evangelicals are dual covenant theologians. This means that they believe that Jews, as God’s chosen people, have a special covenant of their own through the Sinai revelation. No belief in Jesus as Christ is required for them to “go to heaven”. This group includes some big names (Parsley, Morrison, and Bauer, for example) and even, about a year before he died, Jerry Falwell.
I think you’re confusing two different things. A theory of how the natural world works (such as ‘intelligent’ design) that has divine intervention as an element - that isn’t science, thought it pretends to be.
But the hypothesized interaction itself is neither here nor there with respect to science. Science doesn’t say whether there’s a God, and doesn’t take a position on whether he intervenes in this world if he exists. So you can accept scientific truth as scientific truth, and still believe in a God who intervenes in this world, without contradiction.
It’s just that if you base your understanding of the workings of the natural world on divine interventions, that’s religion, not science.
