Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is ID largely supported by Christians?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In America, you bet. 80% of the American population is Christian. Do the math. Connect the dots. Anything with broad support in America can be expected, not surprisingly, to have 80% of its support from Christians.

Comments
... [Trackback] [...] Informations on that Topic: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-id-largely-supported-by-christians/ [...]removals London
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
... [Trackback] [...] Read More: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-id-largely-supported-by-christians/ [...]My Homepage
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
@ new.atheist Part of this talking past one another is perhaps an unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of others ways of knowing. The materialist is driven by a need to understand everything, including how he knows things. There is no difference in principle between scientific measurements today and the ancient Sumerians weighing out silver using a balance. This is all of science: measuring physical properties. Now, Ask a materialist how much love he has for someone and he may try to do a 'blood hormone count' or measure brain activity or something, rather than admit there is no scientific answer. Most people (especially this time of year in the west) will admit that what they most desire is a steady supply of exactly what the materialist claims are only illusions: Faith, Hope, and Love. People kill themselves every day for lack of them. (BTW- this relates to the soul/spirit debate because these attributes/qualities exist as realities in the same "place" and in a similar way.) I categorically reject the idea that these are only illusions based simply because science can't access their properties. I can see and sense their effects. And I "feel" them in a way that only partially involves my physical body. This is the reason why one will never convince a determined materialist of the existence of any reality that is not at least (in principle) scientifically measurable . Simply because how one knows about this reality is not within rational comprehension.kvwells
December 22, 2006
December
12
Dec
22
22
2006
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Patrick Yes, I have been reading way too much SciFi. There's no such thing as reading too much SciFi!DaveScot
December 22, 2006
December
12
Dec
22
22
2006
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
new.atheist I’ll be able to say I spent my living Sundays living life with family/friends/nature instead of inside listening to stories of the past LOL - you'll say it to who? You're an atheist and if you're right you won't be saying anything to anyone after you're dead. The next flaw in this argument is presuming that friends/family aren't in church with you on Sunday morning. This is usually NOT true as families usually attend church together and most people who attend church also have friends within the church. This makes me doubt you've ever actually been a member of a Christian church as the social aspects of getting together with friends and family is one of the major attractions. On the nature part, I've been to many church functions held outdoors although typically not Sunday morning services but even there there are exceptions.DaveScot
December 22, 2006
December
12
Dec
22
22
2006
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
new.atheist: "In that sense; you are saying the possibility of anything is a rational idea." Not quite. Nonsense is certainly not possible. For an object to be A and non-A at the same time violates reason. For the "forces of nature" to be overriden by an event in a more fundamental reality upon which this spacetime depends is not logical nonsense. It is easy to see how it is possible.mike1962
December 21, 2006
December
12
Dec
21
21
2006
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
I didn’t say miracles were most likely, or that they even occur. Only that the possibility of them is a rational idea. In that sense; you are saying the possibility of anything is a rational idea. It's rational to think that everything I know of life is all a figment of my imagination as I lie in a coma? It's rational to think that dogs talk when people aren't around? It's rational to think that I could fly if I thought about it enough? I think you need to look up the definition of "rational" and "reasonable."new.atheist
December 21, 2006
December
12
Dec
21
21
2006
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
new.atheist: "It is only rational if you’ve got some evidance. Otherwise, the most rational explanation for anything that seems to be a “miracle” is coincidence, deception, or “we just don’t understand enough about our universe yet.” I didn't say miracles were most likely, or that they even occur. Only that the possibility of them is a rational idea.mike1962
December 21, 2006
December
12
Dec
21
21
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Patrick -- Assuming such a thing exists we might not be able to interact with it directly and manipulate it but we might be capable of observing its effects on normal matter. I think you may have something there. Observe the effects that the people who claim to have souls and who behave in ways traditionally thought to be good for the soul have on those around them and compare it to the effect of those who claim not to have souls or behave in ways traditionally thought to be bad for the soul. Record the results.tribune7
December 21, 2006
December
12
Dec
21
21
2006
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
But if you’re not sure why be an atheist? Just because I'm unsure of the idea of a soul doesn't mean I still don't believe in a god. Totally different concepts.new.atheist
December 21, 2006
December
12
Dec
21
21
2006
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
How can you test for something that’s immaterial?
Assuming such a thing exists we might not be able to interact with it directly and manipulate it but we might be capable of observing its effects on normal matter. Perhaps "souls" are energistic imprints of formulated neural arrays onto a dimensional substrata that can interact to varying degrees. Yes, I have been reading way too much SciFi. :PPatrick
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
Like I said; I’ll just live my life the best I can & find out for sure when I die; I'm certain I have a soul and I'm certain you have one. But if you're not sure why be an atheist?tribune7
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
How can you test for something that’s immaterial? Not my area of expertise. Perhaps it's more like energy? (Energy isn't material; but we can still test for it.) Or perhaps it's just not there and we'll never be able to prove that. *shrug* Like I said; I'll just live my life the best I can & find out for sure when I die; just like everyone else.new.atheist
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
Perhaps one day humans will figure out a way to test if there is a soul beyond our bodies; How can you test for something that's immaterial?tribune7
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
new.atheist, why would you think that? From all I know; we are just big bags of chemical processes. Throw in some extra chemicals, or cut out a piece of the brain and you change a person's personality; the essence that we know to be them. Perhaps one day humans will figure out a way to test if there is a soul beyond our bodies; but I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime.new.atheist
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Tribune: I don’t really think there is any way to find out if we have a soul except when we die. new.atheist, why would you think that?tribune7
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
There are no such things as “natural laws.” Maybe I used the wrong word? How about the super-natural would be anything that worked against/outside of the physical constants of the universe? "But the idea of the possibily “miracles” from our viewpoint within spacetime is certainly a rational one. " It is only rational if you've got some evidance. Otherwise, the most rational explanation for anything that seems to be a "miracle" is coincidence, deception, or "we just don't understand enough about our universe yet." In my opinion; it is an emotional response to conclude that there is someone on the outside of our universe that cares about any of us enough to interfere.new.atheist
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
new.atheist: "When I speak of natural vs. super-natural, I’m saying that anything super-natural is, to put it most simply, anything that would break the laws of physics. The idea of a deity (as I see it) is that he is all-powerful, and therefore super-natural (above the natural laws of the universe). I’m not saying the cause for this universe doesn’t lie outside of this universe, I’m saying I don’t believe that the laws of this universe can be broken from within this universe." There are no such things as "natural laws." That is simply a name humans give to things we perceive as regular happenings that have not been explained at any deeper level, such as gravity, electroweak, and strong nuclear. The supernature vs nature dichotomy is merely one of dependence. With regards to "nature" vs "supernature", nature as we perceive it (so far) would be dependent on supernature which we cannot perceive. An event in supernature may look like a "miracle" in nature but it would be wrong to say it "violates" nature. Things "naturally" do what they do according to their nature unless interfered with by something else. For example, a body in motion will remain that way, until interfered with from an opposing force. Our fundamental "forces", gravity, electroweak, and strong nuclear, act the same way, that is, they do what do until acted upon by another force which may be more fundamental than those forces. Imagine constructing a virtual reality within a computer with various "forces" acting according to the particular nature you have determined. You set the program running, and it does it's thing. However, you are free at anytime, being outside the constraints of this computerized virtual reality, to tweak, alter, start, stop, and otherwise "violate", the state of this virtual reality as you see fit. If we define "miracle" as a "violation" of "natural law", you could arbitrarily cause "miracles" to occur within the virtual reality. What makes this possible is that the "nature" of the VR depends on a more fundamental "supernature" reality in which you and the computer exist, but would be utterly unknown to the processes of your virtual reality. From the perspective of any virtual people (or processes) inside the VR, "miracles" have occured. But from your view no miracle has occured. Just natural events in the broader Reality. Now, this may not be occuring in our case. Maybe we live in the most fundamental reality. It's impossible to know, unless someone(s) from the greater nature (supernature) decided to make him/her/itself known to us. But the idea of the possibily "miracles" ("violations" of the otherwise regular action of forces within our spacetime) from our viewpoint within spacetime is certainly a rational one. And any outright rejection of the possibiliy is not rational, but emotional.mike1962
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Since you asked; Tribune: I don't really think there is any way to find out if we have a soul except when we die. Postulating about it doesn't do much for me. Shaner: I love it- yes we are all meat. I assume you've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE So, I guess you have a point; if there is no god, how can we really waste our lives? I do wish to live my life in such a way as to leave a better place for the future blobs of matter to experience "life." Why should I care? Because I wish others had done the same for me. Being an atheist is still not something I consider a choice; it just makes sense to me. I do understand that many people do get something out of going to church. I did sometimes. But more often, I was just bored with church. Everyone is a bit different, and you can't say that anyone else in this world might find inner-peace going to church, or synagogue, or the movies, or a psychiatrist. And, while you talk about those miserable souls at Four-bucks coffee, I always think about the miserable people honking at each other as they race to leave the church parking-lot after service. Everyone finds happiness in different things, and instead of feeling sorry for those "depressed looking people" I smile and try to make conversation in line. It's amazing how often that smile spreads. While many have said "god is love," even without god, I still see love, and it's importance in every-day life.new.atheist
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
What I mean is that, when I go to a house of worship, I find genuine love, joy, and inner peace. On the way back home, at those rare times I stop by a Starbucks or restaurant or mall, I find a lot of depressed looking people I notice that too.tribune7
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
new atheist, "I can’t say where I’ll be for eternity, but I’ll be able to say I spent my living Sundays living life with family/friends/nature instead of inside listening to stories of the past." The point is not to listen to stories from the past. The spiritual truths are awesome and for the present. I guess I would put it this way, even if there was no God, I find the enduring spiritual principles from the Bible are far more beneficial, powerful, applicable, relevant, and useful for living today than any hollow words of guidance or instruction I have heard proceed from the mouth of atheism or secular humanism or materialism or whatever "ism" is in vogue at the moment. Problem number two of your thesis is that you hold out an empty promise. What I mean is that, when I go to a house of worship, I find genuine love, joy, and inner peace. On the way back home, at those rare times I stop by a Starbucks or restaurant or mall, I find a lot of depressed looking people feeding their selfish natures. Oh sure, in theory you are right, people could spend their time and effort connecting with one another, enjoying nature, etc. But sadly, that aint what happens. Instead it becomes, for the most part, the colossal mindset of the day -- "its all about me"!! That's just reality.Ekstasis
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
New.atheist wrote: “If there is no god; the religious have wasted a lot of their lives praying to nothing (aside from believing lies).” IMHO, if there is no God, then there is no such thing as “wasting” your life, because what you call your life is totally meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We are all just meat – products of randomness sifted through natural law. I choose to live my life as if there is a God with full knowledge I might be wrong about it because if I am, it doesn’t matter anyway. I mean honestly, what goal is the atheist working towards? A “better” life for future blobs of matter they will never have knowledge of? Tribune7 wrote: “The funny thing is that it is more rational to believe in Thor than it is to think we all came about by happenstance.” I agree. We aren’t talking about making a simple mistake like thinking that the sun revolves around the earth. No, we’re speaking about something containing billions of neurons just “happening” to pop up from mindless matter due to chance and time. No way. I’ll pray to Thor long before I give Darwin the time of day. I think Thor would admit his hammer was designed.shaner74
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Surely possible that the old Pascal’s wager is worse than nothing; lets say that one of the old lot were right, say that Thor is overall in charge. The funny thing is that it is more rational to believe in Thor than it is to think we all came about by happenstance. Still what you say is interesting, not so much in the subtance but in the asking. The prime reason for the existence of science and the glory of Western Civilization is the rejection of arbitrary and unfair gods of the pagan world. Boniface chopped down the tree and reason was the victor. Now those arbiters of science and reason, pretenders though they are, cite paganism as support for their cause.tribune7
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
new.atheist --What if I do have a soul? Then I’ll find out when I’m dead. Don't you think you should put some effort into finding out now? It's kind of an important question.tribune7
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
37. littlejon Pascal understood that the bible teaches that even (especially?) the devil is a Theist. The idea behind Pascal's wager is that one is potentially gaining more and risking less by striving to know God, than by pretending Him out of existence. Of course one can imagine a malevolent god/gods who could or would create the universe we live in. After all, our imagination is not limited by our ignorance.kvwells
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Sorry to be dense, folks, but allow me to illustrate question: Ed (not his real name) grows up in a mansion as a the son of a wealthy father. He never meets his dad face to face . As a questioning teenager he begins to believe (because of preference borne of "absent father syndrome", shallowness, indoctrination by peers, whatever) that his mother is lying to him and that he doesn't have a father. Now my question: If he were to recieve a letter from his father, what mental exerecises would he have to go through to accomodate one of the following reactions? A. continue to deny his father's existence. B. reject his former mindset and accept this newfound relationship. C. maintain a guarded skepticism pending further evidence.kvwells
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Surely possible that the old Pascal's wager is worse than nothing; lets say that one of the old lot were right, say that Thor is overall in charge. Now let's say that Thor has one rule "worship me" and another "don't worship anyone else". Now atheists have only broken the first rule, whereas Christians have broken both. I reckon you've got more chance of slipping past a God you've just ignored than one you've annoyed by chanting to other deities. Conceivably the conclusion is that it may possibly be best to think for ourselves...littlejon
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
DaveScot: If there is no god; the religious have waisted a lot of their lives praying to nothing (aside from believing lies). If there is a god, you have to be sure you've got the right one & then that he likes you. I can't say where I'll be for eternity, but I'll be able to say I spent my living Sundays living life with family/friends/nature instead of inside listening to stories of the past. (If other people think that spending their Sundays at church gives them a sense of living life & community, I really can't object to that too much.) You may think god is "better than nothing" but that doesn't sound like true faith; that sounds like just trying to cover your (supposed) immortal ass. I don't think I could just start believing in god just like I couldn't start believing in Santa again. It's not a matter of pride really. I don't say to myself "I can do it on my own, I don't need god," It's more "I don't see god, so I guess I'll have to do it on my own." Some say god helps those who help themselves. I like think people help each other when they see one of their own struggling.new.atheist
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
jmcd, I would agree with DaveScot, walking the walk is most important. However, we get into a bit of a paradox, because if we do everything right, but refuse to acknowledge God as a result of pride, we just lost out on the most important component of the walk. In other words, I suspect God will be much more understanding of sincere struggles with belief than he will with willful disobedience. Check out this bible verse that many Christians tend to forget: "3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[b] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." 1 John 2 Wow, we are in for a very rude awakening if we think that our "profession of faith" in 4th grade summer camp is going to get us to where we want to go, if we are living self-centered lives, doing whatever we want to do. A true self-inspection would benefit everyone one of us, regardless of our theology. It gets me up in the middle of the night, I can tell you.Ekstasis
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
DaveScot It’s still better than nothing. Unless the real God is jealous, and frowns upon those who believe in different gods more than those who lack belief...franky172
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply