Yes they do, but how many of their central tenets are they willing to give up when contradicted by science? What happens to original sin when there was no Adam, Eve, Garden, Serpent or fruit? A religion with an unobserved god acting indirectly will always be compatible with science, but how many Americans would feel comforted by such a religion?
I think you are switching cause and effect here. I will happily and quickly admit that an effect of Christianity is to relieve fear, but I do not see that being its basis. From a Christian standpoint its basis is a revelation of the truths of God and the proper was of living so as approach, and eventfully obtain, perfection and thus the proper relationship with God. These will appeal to those who are afraid, but that is a secondary effect of the religion not the primary one.
I know it is not the main focus of your point, but I’d like to point out that Biblical literalism is not required for belief in original sin. All that is required that is there were original humans who fell.
Considering how much they go on about “saving” people, and the horrible fate of those who disagree with them, and about how horribly oppressed they are, and how dangerous unbelief is, it’s pretty clear that fear is a central factor in Christianity. Outright fearmongering and paranoia, more often than not.
But there’s no reason to believe in any such thing except a literal reading of the Bible.
There’s that Eurythmics song.
True. There is a contradiction between science and reason and literal tenants of various religions. Today, there is little or no compromise between religion and science, yet this wasn’t always the case in American culture. Prior to the rise of the religious right, conventional culture placed a high value on science. Most people went to church but found a way to accommodate science, progress and religion. The thirty year fundamentalist war on secularism and science has played the primary role in the rise of religious intolerance and anti-intellectualism.
I hope it was clear that I wasn’t saying fundamentalism and original sin had anything to do with one another. But isn’t original sin from a human choice? If there was a large population of proto-humans that somehow evolved into being able to make moral choices, did all of them have to fall? Some? Most? Do we have to be descended from only those who did? The story makes sense with two humans, but not with hundreds of thousands.
BTW we are talking Christians here. I learned the story in Hebrew School, but there was no concept of sin. It was really meant to be a just-so story, explaining why we have to work, why childbirth is painful, why we die, and why snakes bite us.
Plenty. It’s wholly consistent with my understanding of the faith that I was brought up on (Episcopalian).
Adam and Eve are metaphorical stories. Jesus spoke in metaphors: there’s no reason why those more ancient couldn’t do the same.
Also, the minutia of church doctrine matters little to many or most of the faithful. I’ve known Catholics who don’t believe in the Devil and plenty of Christians who find the concept of original sin dubious and the trinity just baffling.
One take on Genesis describes Adam and Eve’s flight as a “Fall upwards”. With language acquisition and a certain threshold of intelligence, humanity became capable of making moral choices. Of course, something was lost at that point, a certain simplicity and innocence. A similar process occurs as infants develop into children.
I guess the Spin Master is still out looking for a Christian to interview so I’ll bump up the question again.
HOW MANY CHRISTIANS ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR OPINION SAMPLE?
It’s cruelly ironic, but I get the impression that many here in the UK see scientists as being closed minded, and homeopaths, astrologers etc being open to the truth.
The reality of course, is much closer to the opposite.
But for the concept to make any sense, there has to be some fundamental underlying real occurrence to that story, else the original sin would not be justified (you cannot punish somebody for a crime he is metaphorically guilty of) – it’s simply that it’s difficult to see what the ‘fall’ of humanity actually means when its development is viewed from a scientific/anthropological stance. If it is, as you allude to, a metaphor for a natural stage in our development, then it again seems rather harsh to punish us for that, since you can hardly assign moral responsibility to us for something we had no hand in deciding (on the other hand, the concept of original sin assigns to us moral responsibility for the actions of our ancestors, so there’s obviously a different opinion on that right there).
List of ancient Greek scientists.
I find this non overlapping magisteriastuff bunk. If religion consists purely of non-factual claims, then religion is false. At some point, if you want a religion worth the name, you have to begin making factual assertions–at least, “God exists”, “the universe is God’s creation,” etc.
Incidentally, I think that the theist necessarily has a number of ancillary commitments which are the province of science. For example, I think a theist almost has to be a libertarian about free will; and libertarianism cannot be true unless you are a dualist. (Well, it can’t be true even then, but it only has a chance if dualism is true.) Dualism vs. physicalism about the mental is a scientific question.
You should narrrow down your question a bit. You don’t mean “why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to science,” you mean “why are so many members of fundamentalist Christian sects that believe in Biblical literalism vehemently opposed to science?”
And those fundamentalists who are opposed to science are a very small subset of Christians. Most Christians have no problem whatsoever with science, understand and accept the theory of evolution, don’t believe that people rode on dinosaurs and ate pterodactyl burgers, etc.
It may be that where you live, in Alabama, the literalist Christians are overrepresented. Those of us who live elsewhere would have had a very different experience. I learned about evolution in my Catholic grammar school, way back in the sixties and early seventies.
So, there is no reason for Jesus? You’re making the UUs sound like Baptists. 
I’m aware that many Christians are uncomfortable with original sin, since many people are more moral than their deity. But what specific claims does Episcopalians make? Does anyone have to be saved? Is it all works? If Adam and Eve fell up, why were they punished? - even metaphorically.
False may be harsh in general. Inaccurate about statements of fact, yes, but actually religion becomes indistinguishable from philosophy when you remove its special claim to accuracy.
Religion is the one with all the made-up stories.
Haven’t you read The Stranger?
I can understand why religion got started. Wouldn’t it be great, when you are losing a philosophical discussion, to pull out God and thus be victorious? It’s kind of like Woody Allen pulling Marshall McLuhan out from behind the sign in Annie Hall.
Dawkins does not claim these things. This is the religionist, boogeyman distortion of Dawkins, not an accurate description of what he really says.
And the hostility towards science existed long before Dawkins became well-known
I can understand that, but really, what’s so bad about that? The world is awe-inspiring… it doesn’t need to be anything more than that. People loved this Discovery promo.
Perfect, omnipotent creator. Unfortunately, a bunch of flawed mortals are the ones who passed along (and translated) the message, so I’ll go with Option A.
That’s silly. (True, unfortunately, but still silly.) Sure there’s more information out there, but it’s not like that first paragraph on the Wikipedia page gets any longer. There’s always a starting point.
I didn’t think that you said fundamentalism is required for original sin. It did seem that you were requiring Biblical literalism. Here is a possible way without it. We could have evolved from animals and thus had an animal soul which, though sufficient and necessary for life, lacks the complexity and immortality of a human soul. Souls cannot evolve so at some point (I assume on once we had reached sufficient complexity and biological potential) the first humans were born. I call them human because at this point they would have been given, by God, human souls. This could have easily been just two individuals or it could have been more. These individuals did something to reject God in a essential way and thus injured human nature in a essential way. Humans pre-fall could make moral choices. It was a moral choice that caused the fall.