Theistic Evolution/Old Earth Creationism

[Kanastrous]

Anyway an individual human might shelf-expire at 122, but humanity as a whole has a lot longer on the clock. Well, unless someone gets frisky with the nukes, or something.

[Broomstick]

Growing a pair might be a non-pharmaceutical alternative. I'm just sayin'.

Oh, I agree. However, I have come to the realization that not everyone will "grow a pair" and you really can't force it in most cases. So... I'll take functional over a futile pursuit of perfection.

[Packbat]

The universe is hostile, dangerous place. Some people seem to need the "warm and fuzzy sky pixie" in order to function. I don't kick the crutch out from underneath cripples, and I don't see a need to remove this one from people who can accept the scientific process and don't believe in the literalness of the Bible - there are far worse things out there than that, and I only have so much time and energy with which to combat ignorance.

Like Kanastrous implied, it is not clear that these people actually need the warm and fuzzy sky pixie. Just because they say they need it, talk as if they need it, doesn't mean they actually need it. Kicking the crutch out from underneath a healthy human being does do them a favor.

Two points to support this:

1. Major disruptions of one's life do not do as much harm as the sufferer expects them to. It's called hedonic adaptation, and although there are some details still being investigated, it's fairly well demonstrated that (say) losing the use of your legs has much less effect two years on that you might expect.
2. Accounts of former devout believers becoming atheists frequently end happily, with the ex-religious reporting a great sense of happiness.

[Kanastrous]

I will freely admit that the sentiment is quite un-generous but there's also a certain constant background annoyance in having to deal with people who choose to cravenly live in a comforting fairy-tale reality tunnel that incidentally causes a great deal of pointless trouble for everybody, including even their fellow tunnel-dwellers. The temptation to try and flood the fucking thing and drive them out into daylight is sometimes overwhelming. In a metaphorical sense, of course.

[General Zod]

Anyway an individual human might shelf-expire at 122, but humanity as a whole has a lot longer on the clock. Well, unless someone gets frisky with the nukes, or something.

Yeah, I read it that he was listing 122 years for humanity in general, considering the vast majority of humans don't live past 100.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I used to be one of those evolution, old earth, theists. Then I realised the model doesn't need god anyway. But if you're a die hard believer and trying to be a rational thinker (minus the whole god bit) it seems like a decent compromise.

[General Mung Beans]

The universe is hostile, dangerous place. Some people seem to need the "warm and fuzzy sky pixie" in order to function. I don't kick the crutch out from underneath cripples, and I don't see a need to remove this one from people who can accept the scientific process and don't believe in the literalness of the Bible - there are far worse things out there than that, and I only have so much time and energy with which to combat ignorance.

Like Kanastrous implied, it is not clear that these people actually need the warm and fuzzy sky pixie. Just because they say they need it, talk as if they need it, doesn't mean they actually need it. Kicking the crutch out from underneath a healthy human being does do them a favor.

So I suppose you can compare it to drug addiction or overdependence on something (ie say people who go into fits if their parent or someone isn't there).

[Kanastrous]

How about just a certain weakness of character?

[General Zod]

How about just a certain weakness of character?

I prefer to think of it as a mental illness. Which most people would consider an imaginary friend.

[Kanastrous]

I'd propose that the basic driving force behind the desire to bring the imaginary friend into adulthood is fear.

[Packbat]

So I suppose you can compare it to drug addiction or overdependence on something (ie say people who go into fits if their parent or someone isn't there).

No - if I were making a metaphor, it would be to a parasitic infection. Religions are meme complexes well-adapted to survive in human minds, containing many features which make them easy to believe, likely to spread, and difficult to eradicate. To give only a few examples: childhood indoctrination, favorable afterlife, ritual, community, ethical framework, tribalism, exceptionalism of members ... religions are not constrained to accuracy, so they are permitted to use any means available to attach themselves to populations, and simple survival of the fittest ensures that we see well-optimized examples. And they work so well that even smart people are often taken in.

Depressing, really.

[Simon_Jester]

Packbat has a point. Religions are pretty well tailored to be believed by people, and their priests do a really good job of selling them. How much of a character weakness do you need to fall for that, given that almost everyone on Earth did to one degree or another until very recently?

How about just a certain weakness of character?

I prefer to think of it as a mental illness. Which most people would consider an imaginary friend.

Most people's experience of religion is a little different from the imaginary friends we classically imagine. There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind, just people assuming whatever stuff happens in their life is caused by the entity.

[General Zod]

How about just a certain weakness of character?

I prefer to think of it as a mental illness. Which most people would consider an imaginary friend.

Most people's experience of religion is a little different from the imaginary friends we classically imagine. There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind, just people assuming whatever stuff happens in their life is caused by the entity.

I'd say it's more a matter of degrees than whether or not it falls under some "classical" definition. Especially considering how many people still pray hoping to get God to respond to them.

[Liberty]

How about just a certain weakness of character?

I prefer to think of it as a mental illness. Which most people would consider an imaginary friend.

Most people's experience of religion is a little different from the imaginary friends we classically imagine. There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind, just people assuming whatever stuff happens in their life is caused by the entity.

What do you mean, "There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind"? I've spent a lot of time around fundies, and I used to be one, and let me tell you, there is a LOT of direct interaction going on in the mind. For the most hardcore fundies, prayer becomes almost constant, so that they're forever talking to Jesus in their minds, about every little thing. And every time something happens that they don't like, or that scares them, or what have you, there is more direct communication in the mind. I used to do it all the time. I had to use the bathroom and it was the middle of the night and dark? I would talk to Jesus, telling him I was scared and asking him to protect me. I was having trouble on a test? I'd ask Jesus to calm my mind and help me find the answer. The sunset was particularly beautiful? I'd tell Jesus how lovely his creation was. And on and on. And I felt he was really there, felt his presence with me, beside me, all the time.

And then I started down the slippery slope of doubt. It started just with problems with the Bible, etc, and the very last thing to go was Jesus as my personal friend always there. See, through all my initial doubts, the feeling of my personal relationship with Jesus was still very strong, so I didn't doubt that. It was really that I woke up one day and asked myself: "okay, so, the Bible isn't true, and core ideas of Christianity don't make sense, so why do I still feel like I have Jesus as my personal friend?" And then I realize that he was just my imaginary friend. When I was a little girl, I had an imaginary pet swallow that would sit on my shoulder, fly around me, etc. And I really felt it was there. And this relationship with Jesus thing - this was the exact same feeling. And then, with that realization, I bid my imaginary friend goodbye.

I can't speak for everyone, but I really do think that Jesus serves as an actual "imaginary friend" for fundies and evangelicals. He's someone who's always there, who they can always talk to, etc.

[Simon_Jester]

Most people's experience of religion is a little different from the imaginary friends we classically imagine. There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind, just people assuming whatever stuff happens in their life is caused by the entity.

What do you mean, "There's little or no direct interaction with the entity in the subject's mind"? I've spent a lot of time around fundies, and I used to be one, and let me tell you, there is a LOT of direct interaction going on in the mind. For the most hardcore fundies, prayer becomes almost constant, so that they're forever talking to Jesus in their minds, about every little thing.

Note the distinction between "the most hardcore fundies" and "most people's experience of religion."

I mean, if we go all the way out to the far end of the scale, we've got Joan of Arc, with full-out hallucinations of imaginary entities telling her what to do, in so many words. But that doesn't mean that the majority of the human race experiences religion the same way.

Liberty, you were stuck in a church that went very far out of its way to cultivate the "personal relationship with Jesus" meme, to encourage you to build up the divine into something you would believe was literally sitting around and looking over your shoulder or living inside your head or something along those lines. Not every religious group does that, not to the same degree.

I can't speak for everyone, but I really do think that Jesus serves as an actual "imaginary friend" for fundies and evangelicals. He's someone who's always there, who they can always talk to, etc.

And I'm not denying that. But generalizing from "fundies and evangelicals" to "most people" is a bad idea.

[Liberty]

I can't speak for everyone, but I really do think that Jesus serves as an actual "imaginary friend" for fundies and evangelicals. He's someone who's always there, who they can always talk to, etc.

And I'm not denying that. But generalizing from "fundies and evangelicals" to "most people" is a bad idea.

I know that. However, I am curious. I would guess that there are a lot of devout people in different denominations that feel this same "personal relationship" with God. They feel comforted by his always being there, knowing they can always cry out to him if there is a problem, etc. I would guess that the devout in every major monotheistic religion feel this personal connection with the divine being. So when you say, "most people," do you mean most devout believers, or do you literally mean, say, "most Americans." Because there is a big difference.

And while I'm not sure, I would guess that the divine serves as a sort of imaginary friend (to a greater or lesser extent) to most devout believers, not just to most evangelicals or fundamentalists. I could be totally off here, but I have attended Catholic churches and Episcopalian churches where I got the sense that people did feel this. Again, I don't have a statistic or study, and I could be completely wrong on this.

So - how could we find out what most devout people's experiences are in this area? Is there a study of some sort? Maybe I should go do some googling...

[Simon_Jester]

I know that. However, I am curious. I would guess that there are a lot of devout people in different denominations that feel this same "personal relationship" with God. They feel comforted by his always being there, knowing they can always cry out to him if there is a problem, etc. I would guess that the devout in every major monotheistic religion feel this personal connection with the divine being. So when you say, "most people," do you mean most devout believers, or do you literally mean, say, "most Americans." Because there is a big difference.

I mean most people, across all cultures; speculatively I mean across all eras of history as well.

My feeling is that most people aren't that intensely religious, and even if they are they don't have that personal "touched by angels" feeling. The evangelical Protestant churches are unusual in that they actively encourage everyone to feel this and elevate it to the highest and most sacred aspect of the faith. Which encourages children to develop it (as you did) and encourages any who don't develop it to mimic it and try to convince themselves that they feel it (I know a few people who are like this, as I recall their description of their own upbringing).

Thing is, even the not-so-devout believers who don't have a strong personal sense that an invisible friend is hovering over them and talking to them* may still honestly believe in the tenets of the religion, and may honestly find the religion comforting.

*This is an important part of what I mean by "direct communication;" there's a difference between a one-way attempt to communicate with a supernatural being and the belief that the supernatural being is talking back...

[Serafina]

Actually, my limited experience agrees with Liberty here.
Most (nearly all) relgious people maintain some level of personal relationship with their god(s).
That can be anything from what Liberty describes over a prayer in the evening to an occasional one under special circumstances.
But they all talk to an imagnitive being - friend - and believe it to be real. Perhaps not very often, but they still do it. Talking back is not required for that, that's just an indicator that someone is further into it than someone who doesn't.

I would go as far and define someone who never tries to communicate with their god as non-religious (unless their religon says that's it impossible anyway, but i know no such religion).

[General Zod]

I know that. However, I am curious. I would guess that there are a lot of devout people in different denominations that feel this same "personal relationship" with God. They feel comforted by his always being there, knowing they can always cry out to him if there is a problem, etc. I would guess that the devout in every major monotheistic religion feel this personal connection with the divine being. So when you say, "most people," do you mean most devout believers, or do you literally mean, say, "most Americans." Because there is a big difference.

I mean most people, across all cultures; speculatively I mean across all eras of history as well.

My feeling is that most people aren't that intensely religious, and even if they are they don't have that personal "touched by angels" feeling. The evangelical Protestant churches are unusual in that they actively encourage everyone to feel this and elevate it to the highest and most sacred aspect of the faith. Which encourages children to develop it (as you did) and encourages any who don't develop it to mimic it and try to convince themselves that they feel it (I know a few people who are like this, as I recall their description of their own upbringing).

Thing is, even the not-so-devout believers who don't have a strong personal sense that an invisible friend is hovering over them and talking to them* may still honestly believe in the tenets of the religion, and may honestly find the religion comforting.

*This is an important part of what I mean by "direct communication;" there's a difference between a one-way attempt to communicate with a supernatural being and the belief that the supernatural being is talking back...

Maybe I should clarify my post, in that I meant most people would consider an adult with an imaginary friend to be mentally ill. The fact that people have some cognitive dissonance going on with religion is beside the point.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe I should clarify my post, in that I meant most people would consider an adult with an imaginary friend to be mentally ill. The fact that people have some cognitive dissonance going on with religion is beside the point.

Actually, my limited experience agrees with Liberty here.
Most (nearly all) relgious people maintain some level of personal relationship with their god(s).
That can be anything from what Liberty describes over a prayer in the evening to an occasional one under special circumstances.
But they all talk to an imagnitive being - friend - and believe it to be real. Perhaps not very often, but they still do it. Talking back is not required for that, that's just an indicator that someone is further into it than someone who doesn't.

I would go as far and define someone who never tries to communicate with their god as non-religious (unless their religon says that's it impossible anyway, but i know no such religion).

To me, there's an important dividing line between those who attempt to communicate to supernatural beings, and those who believe that such beings are communicating with them, or who feel some tangible sense that such a being is physically present with them.

Someone who talks to things that aren't there isn't necessarily mentally ill in any meaningful sense, except in the sense that everyone is mentally ill because they do things they can't prove make sense. Someone who talks to things that aren't there in public, or heavily, or to the exclusion of other activities (such as talking to people who are physically present)... at that point you can make a better case for mental illness, yes, but even many of the devoutly religious would think it a little strange if someone randomly interjected sentences of prayer into their conversations, addressing God much as they would a person who was tangibly present in the room.

But the baseline behavior of praying to an entity you believe but cannot prove is there... if that's insane at all, it's insane to such a low degree that it vanishes into the background radiation. It's no more insane than any number of things people do all the time simply because we're not perfectly rational agents.

Again, there is a line people can cross here, where the low-order background insanity becomes a real, recognizable condition with serious consequences. The person who believes angels or demons speak to them and tell them to do things, the person who randomly stops what they're doing and addresses God as they would a person in the room, the person for whom prayer is such an intensive ritual activity that it takes up a large fraction of their time with strange behaviors on par with obsessive hand-washing or some such... you can make a good case for such people being crazy.

But people who are that intensely tied to their supernatural friend are not all that thick on the ground, even in evangelical circles. At least, not that I'm aware of.

[Kanastrous]

The pass-for-sane types lend cover to the crazies, including the dangerous ones. Any swamp has patches of dry ground amid the sludge; it's still a swamp in need of draining.

[Simon_Jester]

The pass-for-sane types lend cover to the crazies, including the dangerous ones. Any swamp has patches of dry ground amid the sludge; it's still a swamp in need of draining.

Again, I am just not big on culture-war crusades, or against proposals to "drain the swamp" when it is not clear on what that would entail.

Realistically, trying to fight an active campaign against an idea that offends your sensibilities is liable to create opposition. The religious fanatics will try to take your ideas down in retaliation for your trying to take down theirs, and they're better at it than you are.

I would much rather leave people an honorable out when they agree to stop damaging the school science curriculum than fight a total ideological war with them, especially when I might not win.

[Kanastrous]

Oh, I don't think a frontal-assault approach would work at all in general societal terms. It's going to be a protracted, decades-long project to undermine the teaching of the mind-poison and salvage as many individuals as possible.

I'd say that the religious fanatics are better at convincing themselves that they have taken down ideas they don't like. Although the practical end result is much the same.

Until you succeed in either eradicating or ghettoizing the troublemakers* - who are by nature dishonorable - you will be obliged to fight an unending rear-guard battle to protect that curriculum.




*figuratively, not literally. tempting as it may be, some days...

[Channel72]

Again, there is a line people can cross here, where the low-order background insanity becomes a real, recognizable condition with serious consequences. The person who believes angels or demons speak to them and tell them to do things, the person who randomly stops what they're doing and addresses God as they would a person in the room, the person for whom prayer is such an intensive ritual activity that it takes up a large fraction of their time with strange behaviors on par with obsessive hand-washing or some such... you can make a good case for such people being crazy.

I think a large percentage of religious Christians do actually believe God responds to them. They're not crazy in the sense that they're actually hearing a booming voice in their head; rather, they simply interpret various occurrences, thoughts, or interactions as communications from God. Really, it's the same sort of religious behavior humanity has been engaged in for millenia in the form of extispicy, tea-leaf reading, or bird-omen interpretation, except it's even more generic. Religious people often say things like "and then God showed me X" to describe some personal realization they recently had, or "and God really answered all my prayers" after they get that new job opening they were after. Sometimes it's as simple as interpreting a recently established personal conviction as evidence of a divine communication.

The hilarious thing is that it's probably difficult to distinguish true, clinical insanity, (except in extreme cases) from the normal human tendency to "discover" purposeful, thinking agents behind every ordinary happenstance.

[Kanastrous]

Lacking real training in the field I can't put the name to it but there is a clinical term for people who don't actually 'hear the voices' but still become convinced that every number they see on a bar tab is imbued with deep personal significance to them, that events reported on the news contain hidden messages intended just for them, that they are in secret telepathic or emotional communion with tv stars whom they've never met...you don't have to literally hear voices in order to be diagnosable.

The difficulty in diagnosis probably arises from the fact that if one person believes that they are receiving secret messages from the Great Green Arkleseizure, well, it's cake to identify that person as crazy. But just get a few hundred thousand, or hundred million, or a billion people all professing belief in it and suddenly it's no longer crazy, it's a Great World Religion and for some reason we're expected to grant it respect...