Just had a discussion with the wife about this. She's a deist who identifies as Christian in a nebular sense that I still can't quite figure out. She seems to have no problem with the entire bible being metaphorical, but is stuck on some strange parts she thinks were literal.
I have a point here, I promise. I'll try not to make this a personal support thread.
Early in our relationship, she insisted, for example, that Microevolution occurred, but Macro did not. I informed her that born terms referred to the same thing over different periods of time, gave examples, and she quite reasonably and rationally put together information she'd never been exposed to before, and concluded evolution was in fact, undeniable scientific fact.
We used to talk about religion frequently, but there were a few points I just let her have. The occasional comment about Noah's Ark, or a Garden of Eden reference.
Recently, she noticed I have been actively commenting on several Facebook pages, including Shit Creationists Say, a group that presents gems such as![[Image: evume4ez.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F07%2F03%2Fevume4ez.jpg)
I have a problem with people who think this way. I see the end result of it: My wife was raised YEC but intelligent enough to question and make her own judgements, even though she was deprived of the education she deserved due to similar thinking.
Anyway, it came to a head, and she asked why I was openly belligerent against creationism.
She was genuinely hurt. I've mentioned before that she's insecure about her intellect for no good reason, and I strongly suspect she's a good deal smarter than I am. My wife will literally stop in the middle of an argument to think, announce that she's hormonal and her emotions are overwhelming her, and tell me she needs to calm down and re-approach the discussion when she's not emotionally compromised. I've never encountered that before.
I cited Francis Collins, who maintains a strong Christian faith while running the Human Genome Project, and scientists like him who have a faith, but choose to embrace science -- Read: Reality -- rather than deny it because of their religious views, and that Collins has openly stated that the Adam and Eve story of Genesis is genetically impossible; there could have been no less than 10,000 individuals on earth to account for the genetic variations seen today.
If you see something as a metaphor, I told her, you're counting it as a simplified story, and not a literal play book rundown.
She paused, like she usually does when presented with an angle she hasn't considered before, and agreed.
Her entire gripe with my belligerent attitude toward Creationism was feeling her beliefs were being belittled; her intellect was being belittled, and I was doing the same to other people.
![[Image: 8a2evuhu.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F07%2F03%2F8a2evuhu.jpg)
There's a fundamental (pun unintended) difference between respecting an individual's faith, and an individual who walks up to you on the street and informs you they own a larger than average purple inter-dimensional toaster named Xorflax that is currently manifesting behind you.
I believe that faith is respectable, insofar as f is independent of reason. People who deny reality whenever it conflicts with their beliefs are, by definition, delusional.
On an atheist forum, I can express the idea that supernatural beliefs of any sort are irrational. In everyday life, not so much.
The difference between a Young Earth Creationist with a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible, and a believer who accepts the reality of science while still maintaining their faith in a cosmic order is light years apart.
I wish we had better terms for those differences. A deist who believes in guided evolution is an ally of reason, and not an enemy. And yet they get lumped in with the group who think a bearded man descended from Heaven and molded their bodies out of clay before breathing life into them, and will repeatedly ask you why there are still monkeys if we're descended from monkeys, no matter how many times you explain what a common ancestor is, and their assessment is flawed.
![[Image: anujyteh.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F07%2F03%2Fanujyteh.jpg)
I have, and will continue to attack irrational beliefs, and ridicule them when they deserve it. As I hope you will. But I think we need better terminology to do so.
I have a point here, I promise. I'll try not to make this a personal support thread.
Early in our relationship, she insisted, for example, that Microevolution occurred, but Macro did not. I informed her that born terms referred to the same thing over different periods of time, gave examples, and she quite reasonably and rationally put together information she'd never been exposed to before, and concluded evolution was in fact, undeniable scientific fact.
We used to talk about religion frequently, but there were a few points I just let her have. The occasional comment about Noah's Ark, or a Garden of Eden reference.
Recently, she noticed I have been actively commenting on several Facebook pages, including Shit Creationists Say, a group that presents gems such as
I have a problem with people who think this way. I see the end result of it: My wife was raised YEC but intelligent enough to question and make her own judgements, even though she was deprived of the education she deserved due to similar thinking.
Anyway, it came to a head, and she asked why I was openly belligerent against creationism.
She was genuinely hurt. I've mentioned before that she's insecure about her intellect for no good reason, and I strongly suspect she's a good deal smarter than I am. My wife will literally stop in the middle of an argument to think, announce that she's hormonal and her emotions are overwhelming her, and tell me she needs to calm down and re-approach the discussion when she's not emotionally compromised. I've never encountered that before.
I cited Francis Collins, who maintains a strong Christian faith while running the Human Genome Project, and scientists like him who have a faith, but choose to embrace science -- Read: Reality -- rather than deny it because of their religious views, and that Collins has openly stated that the Adam and Eve story of Genesis is genetically impossible; there could have been no less than 10,000 individuals on earth to account for the genetic variations seen today.
If you see something as a metaphor, I told her, you're counting it as a simplified story, and not a literal play book rundown.
She paused, like she usually does when presented with an angle she hasn't considered before, and agreed.
Her entire gripe with my belligerent attitude toward Creationism was feeling her beliefs were being belittled; her intellect was being belittled, and I was doing the same to other people.
There's a fundamental (pun unintended) difference between respecting an individual's faith, and an individual who walks up to you on the street and informs you they own a larger than average purple inter-dimensional toaster named Xorflax that is currently manifesting behind you.
I believe that faith is respectable, insofar as f is independent of reason. People who deny reality whenever it conflicts with their beliefs are, by definition, delusional.
On an atheist forum, I can express the idea that supernatural beliefs of any sort are irrational. In everyday life, not so much.
The difference between a Young Earth Creationist with a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible, and a believer who accepts the reality of science while still maintaining their faith in a cosmic order is light years apart.
I wish we had better terms for those differences. A deist who believes in guided evolution is an ally of reason, and not an enemy. And yet they get lumped in with the group who think a bearded man descended from Heaven and molded their bodies out of clay before breathing life into them, and will repeatedly ask you why there are still monkeys if we're descended from monkeys, no matter how many times you explain what a common ancestor is, and their assessment is flawed.
I have, and will continue to attack irrational beliefs, and ridicule them when they deserve it. As I hope you will. But I think we need better terminology to do so.
