Future of Christianity in US

[Esquilax]

rexbeccarox and others: I should have pointed out that the best material, I think, from RTB is in Hugh Ross' book called More Than a Theory where he outlines a testable creation model. Since it is testable, of course it isnt all right, but it is the most thoughtful origins study I have seen out there. There is a long list of claims made there.

Well, I took a look at that too. I didn't buy the book, but I did check out a summarized review of it by the National Center for Science Education, and only by reading their summary of Ross' claims within the book, I am troubled. Here's the review, if you're interested, but I didn't have to go far to find something objectionable. Twice in Ross' list of claims for naturalism, he argues from fine tuning, which is quite simply incredibly fallacious. Arguments from fine tuning assume their conclusion that there actually is fine tuning; without doing so the meat of the claim falls away. If the universe as it is is not a "success" state for which there could be potential "failure" states- which is what fine tuning attempts to demonstrate- then there is no argument there; the universe just is how it happened to be. Without demonstrating that this specific universe was being aimed for, fine tuning is simply a circular argument.

If the rest of the book features the same kind of fallacies, I see no reason to take it seriously. Further reading indicates that it does, but I also take issue with the language in the title: "More than a theory"? If he means to imply that there are terms in science superior to a theory, then he is mistaken. If he means to go to the old creationist well of "evolution is just a theory!" then... well, he's kinda done already, because that is ridiculous.

[robvalue]

I think fine tuning is about the same as Douglas Adams with his puddle analogy. The puddle thinks, "Wow this hole in the ground fits me absolutely perfectly, it was made just for me!"

(Not the exact quote but it's the gist)

Also, it's complete crap.

[Ryantology]

But do increased critical thinking skills lead to a choice against Christianity?

If they are actually being used? Certainly.

Are the Christian ones dumber than the atheist ones?

In that one particular way, they are unquestionably dumber.

[robvalue]

For sure, a Christian could be more accomplished than me in every other respect, and far more intelligent. But they have still failed to use all those amazing tools properly when it comes to their religion. Suddenly all their intellectual rigour drops away, and their arguments become childish rationalisations.

[Mr Greene]

That argument has been helpful to me.

I see two problems:

(1) debunking Christianity
I use the historical evidence showing that Judaism and Christianity evolved gradually to debunk the Abrahamic religions. (I'm 90% convinced on this.)

(2) debunking a deity that cares what I do or think.
I use the philosophical arguments to debunk. (I'm 60% convinced on this.)

OK so you're 90% convinced that the Abrahamic stuff is claptrap, but only 60% on the possibility of 'a deity' that cares about your thoughts/actions.
Beyond the Abrahamic contender, what other options are there? The only real contender for a monotheistic view is the one the Jews proposed and we've established that they were talking out of their arses.
Do you want to start going through the list of Polytheistic deities? I think they number around 6000 or so.

[Jhayward]

esquilax: Well I am impressed you looked up something having to do with the book. I dont buy your argument against fine tuning. It seems to me one of those things where one could argue that your assumptions/beliefs before looking at the data could push you either way. If you decide there is no way fine tuning exists, it never will. There is always something that can explain life, for example-- it came from another planet, everything is possible with so many planets out there, multiverses, aliens, etc.

And yes, macroevolution is a theory where parts of the findings can be falsified. They somebody can come up with the next best thing.

---

robvalue: If someones eternity hangs in the balance, isnt it only fair -- one could argue, not that God needs to be fair as far we judge it-- to make faith so easy that even a child could accept it? Even so, I argue that those children could grow up to be brilliant scientists. So I think the two are rather independent, although the former (faith) is much more important than the latter (intelligence, superior reasoning, etc). Jesus was quoted as saying numerous times that if one cannot be like a child, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But many on this forum will call that path of a myth.

[FatAndFaithless]

Macroevolution is a snake-oil term cultivated by creationists who have absolutely no intent to address the theory of evolution properly, and instead want to co-opt the verbiage of the scientific realm in order to prop up their own baseless predrawn conclusions or drag scientific theory down to their own level of sloppy false-equivalence and inaccurate representation of reality.

If you think there is any real fundamental difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", you really are relying on the worst sort of creationist shill. I'd ask for some sources to back up your claims, but hopefully none from Answers in Genesis, CARM.org, whyevolutionisfalse, or some other such nonsense site that contains a mission statement asserting the acceptance of biblical accounts of life regardless of what current science might say.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Macroevolution is a snake-oil term cultivated by creationists who have absolutely no intent to address the theory of evolution properly, and instead want to co-opt the verbiage of the scientific realm in order to prop up their own baseless predrawn conclusions or drag scientific theory down to their own level of sloppy false-equivalence and inaccurate representation of reality.

If you think there is any real fundamental difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", you really are relying on the worst sort of creationist shill. I'd ask for some sources to back up your claims, but hopefully none from Answers in Genesis, CARM.org, whyevolutionisfalse, or some other such nonsense site that contains a mission statement asserting the acceptance of biblical accounts of life regardless of what current science might say.

This.

There is no distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution - It's entirely arbitrary.

[Tonus]

If you decide there is no way fine tuning exists, it never will.

But without any way to determine whether or not the universe is fine-tuned, that accusation cuts both ways. To determine that the universe is fine-tuned, you must be able to show that its "settings" could be tuned at all. How do you prove that?

[robvalue]

Agreed. If you think micro and macro evolution are different, you have been brainwashed by propaganda. Simple as that.