Burfeind: Social Gospel preachers gained traction because they rallied earlier communitarian revivalism in opposition to voguish Social Darwinism… Their argument wasn’t against the Theory of Evolution per se… They in essence were saying, “Evolution is on our side.”
It’s all malarkey. In the real world, it would be awfully nice to find fossil bacteria on Mars. When that seems to be taking some time, we hear about 36 alien civs. That’s because there’ll always be a market for We Are Not Alone. The thing is, it used to be called religion, not science. And it still IS religion, not science.
The Church recovered the classical academy—Plato and Aristotle and so forth. As for unfettered debate, under university atheism, it is becoming nearly extinct in many faculties, due to disbelief in the reality of the mind.
Miriam Schoenfeld: Let’s work with a hypothetical example. Suppose I’m raised among atheists and firmly believe that God doesn’t exist. I realise that, had I grown up in a religious community, I would almost certainly have believed in God. …
UD News: An alternative approach is Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, as explained by Michael Egnor: Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference.
There are so many awkward questions that the propaganda keeps people from asking.
A tech writer suggests humans can escape Earth’s end by digitizing ourselves elsewhere in the galaxy.
Lindberg: “It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”
And Bimbette Fluffarelli, talk show hostess, learned it sixteenth-hand at school…
The troubling part is that many sources won’t talk about this stuff because it is “religious” but they don’t mind parroting some flapdoodle from a village atheist, of whom it might be said that to call him merely ill-informed would be to shower him with unearned praise.
The really remarkable thing is that after all this time and all that rhetoric, Adam and Eve remain a defensible idea.
The new atheist project appears to be failing anyway. It might help Dawkins’s numbers if he did debate. But not our business, of course.
Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their OWN beliefs to these types of sources. How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading and writing boring, useless papers and sitting in boring, useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.
Some reviewers almost make us forget that string theory was supposed to be science, not religion. Get a load of this review of string theorist Brian Greene’s new book, Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe (Penguin 2020)
For example, Günter Bechly: “Altogether, I suggest that the cumulative evidence against materialism and for theism is simply overwhelming. I became a Christian theist not in spite of being a scientist but because of it.”
Note: “Taken together, these studies indicate that perceived bias against Christians in science may contribute to underrepresentation of Christians but actual bias against Christians in science may be restricted to a specific type of Christianity that scientists call fundamentalist and/or evangelical.” Well, Christians pay taxes for science and it’s really up to them to launch actions against actual bias incidents. No?
So if aliens exist, they must be just like us because… evolution. This is a religion. Didn’t say it was a bad religion. But definitely a religion.