Bad News For Evangelicals

[Dr H]

My point is that the topic of this thread uses the poorest representation of Christianity to represent the church in general, which is inaccurate and serves no purpose (other than smugness and amusement for the people engaged in this thread). I could (some do) use the same approach for atheism to make you all look like idiots to my theist friends, but that would not be true since some atheists have reasons for their beliefs and I'd much rather show that to other theists than deceive them into thinking you are all halfwits

I've encountered this critique before, and  -- to an extent -- I agree with it.

If one is serious about criticizing a particular institution or idea, one should be willing to take on it's strongest evidence and supporting arguments, rather than its weakest.  For that reason I seldom bother arguing with Young Earth Creationists, or Biblical literalists, anymore -- it's not unlike using a shotgun to kill tuna fish in a bathtub.  Little point, and no sport at all.

Sometimes, of course, context dictates that one much approach a subject on something less than its loftiest levels.  I've debated with a lot of Christians over the years.  Some have been priests, who actually go to college to learn the finer points of the subject of their trade.  Some have been serious scholars of religion -- I spent the better part of a decade in on-line debate -- both public and private -- with a Christian apologist who recently completed his PhD in theology at Oxford.

But most of the Christians I encounter are from the rank and file of the pews and revival tents.  And the way I mostly encounter them which leads to debate, is when they are trying -- volubly and forcefully -- to impose their beliefs on me, or on my general community, whether through legislation; censorship; or direct physical action.  Such activity demands response, and doesn't always lend itself to the niceties of reasoned debate on abstruse philosophical concepts.  When, for example, someone insists on inserting a mythological story into a biology curriculum, and promotes legislation to do so, they need to be stopped, and told why they are being stopped, in no uncertain terms.

In the US, where I live, it is a few relatively small extremist sects of Christianity that typically make most of the noise -- and they make a LOT of noise.  While they do not represent the whole of Christianity, they do represent a faction of it which needs to be dealt with, often on a daily basis, because they make sure that they are always right in the face of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular narrow viewpoint.  These people are not drawing their view of Christianity from deep readings and meditations on Plantinga or N. T. Wright -- most have never heard of them.  And for the most part they can't be approached on that level.  It would be like trying to argue a street punk out of mugging you by offering to debate the ethical theories of Hume and Mills.

Even so, when I debate apologists -- some of who believed they were presenting me with the best  arguments for God, religion, and Christianity -- I can't say that I found anything very new or thought provoking in what they presented.  True, the God they believe in seems to be more of a "God of the gaps" than the God of the Bible, but the primary way in which they seem to differ from the "street Christians" (for want of a better term), is in being able to provide more references for their arguments than just "the Bible".   While that may be impressive in an academic setting, and move one ever towards publication, arguments essentially unsupported by evidence tend to supply only a wobbly foundation for a thesis, no matter how many or how flowery those arguments may be.

Still... if you feel you have a better representation of Christianity, the Church, of God to present, by all means do so.   
I'd be happy to look at it. 

[Angrboda]

My point is that the topic of this thread uses the poorest representation of Christianity to represent the church in general, which is inaccurate and serves no purpose (other than smugness and amusement for the people engaged in this thread). I could (some do) use the same approach for atheism to make you all look like idiots to my theist friends, but that would not be true since some atheists have reasons for their beliefs and I'd much rather show that to other theists than deceive them into thinking you are all halfwits

I've encountered this critique before, and  -- to an extent -- I agree with it.

If one is serious about criticizing a particular institution or idea, one should be willing to take on it's strongest evidence and supporting arguments, rather than its weakest.  For that reason I seldom bother arguing with Young Earth Creationists, or Biblical literalists, anymore -- it's not unlike using a shotgun to kill tuna fish in a bathtub.  Little point, and no sport at all.

Sometimes, of course, context dictates that one much approach a subject on something less than its loftiest levels.  I've debated with a lot of Christians over the years.  Some have been priests, who actually go to college to learn the finer points of the subject of their trade.  Some have been serious scholars of religion -- I spent the better part of a decade in on-line debate -- both public and private -- with a Christian apologist who recently completed his PhD in theology at Oxford.

But most of the Christians I encounter are from the rank and file of the pews and revival tents.  And the way I mostly encounter them which leads to debate, is when they are trying -- volubly and forcefully -- to impose their beliefs on me, or on my general community, whether through legislation; censorship; or direct physical action.  Such activity demands response, and doesn't always lend itself to the niceties of reasoned debate on abstruse philosophical concepts.  When, for example, someone insists on inserting a mythological story into a biology curriculum, and promotes legislation to do so, they need to be stopped, and told why they are being stopped, in no uncertain terms.

In the bible, the church refers to the laity, not the priests and elites. So if one is criticizing the church, it is indeed legitimate to sample the rank and file. That's what defines a religion. Not the specific views of a minority.

[silverspine]

What does the commandment of love have to do with some Evangelical Christians being ignorant of the tenets of their faith? One can be ignorant of their tenets of faith and still love the Lord with all their heart, mind, soul and strength. And being ignorant of most Christian doctrines doesn't mean they're "dabbling" in Christianity;

I disagre. Have you ever met a true NFL fan who didn't really understand football? Maybe a newbie who just got into it. That's fair enough, he will learn soon. But on Superbowl Sunday it seems like nearly everybody is a diehard football fan. If you would go about your local sportsbar, which is way fuller than usual, and ask random people about specific, noteworthy players, you would soon discover that they aren't really fans at all. But rather, they just wanted to join the excitement of the day, so they pick a team based on their preferred colour, place bets, cheer, curse, buy shots when favored team scores and so on. The next day at work or school they either complain or boast about the outcome of the game, then continue another year without giving football another thought.

On the other hand, true fans understand the game well, are familiar with the better players, and will likely remember who won the last 4 Superbowls. Likewise, anyone who loves anything with all their heart, mind, soul and strength, would certainly gain basic understanding of the subject at hand fairly quickly, because to use all your heart, mind, soul and strength requires a high level of devotion

they could be sincere believers who really do love the Lord but just don't happen to have the intelligence, education and/or knowledge that some others have.

I certainly agree there is variance of knowledge, that was what I originally posted about

---

I don't need to search for that imaginary fairytale. I wasted most of my life doing just that until I got smart and realized that it just doesn't exist. I'm good without a god.

If you are 'good without god', then why did you spend most of your life searching for him? When people are content they generally stop searching. But let's say you were deceived into thinking there was something worth seeking (for most of your life), then why the bitter attitude toward others who are 'deceived'? One might expect compassion and understanding from someone who went through the same thing

[Angrboda]

What does the commandment of love have to do with some Evangelical Christians being ignorant of the tenets of their faith? One can be ignorant of their tenets of faith and still love the Lord with all their heart, mind, soul and strength. And being ignorant of most Christian doctrines doesn't mean they're "dabbling" in Christianity;

I disagre. Have you ever met a true NFL fan who didn't really understand football? Maybe a newbie who just got into it. That's fair enough, he will learn soon. But on Superbowl Sunday it seems like nearly everybody is a diehard football fan. If you would go about your local sportsbar, which is way fuller than usual, and ask random people about specific, noteworthy players, you would soon discover that they aren't really fans at all. But rather, they just wanted to join the excitement of the day, so they pick a team based on their preferred colour, place bets, cheer, curse, buy shots when favored team scores and so on. The next day at work or school they either complain or boast about the outcome of the game, then continue another year without giving football another thought.

On the other hand, true fans understand the game well, are familiar with the better players, and will likely remember who won the last 4 Superbowls. Likewise, anyone who loves anything with all their heart, mind, soul and strength, would certainly gain basic understanding of the subject at hand fairly quickly, because to use all your heart, mind, soul and strength requires a high level of devotion

Fascinating analogy. Unfortunately, typical people such as those polled don't simply embrace their religious beliefs at Easter or Christmas. Given what I know of evangelicals in general, that would seem to be as far from the case as possible. Nor would they be described as not loving and caring about their faith.

As Hume has noted, in so far as an analogy departs in the specifics of how the things are similar, it loses credibility until the point at which it is no longer a credible argument. I think you've reached that point.

[Gwaithmir]

It's nearly midnight here. I'm getting ready for bed.

[Joods]

---

I don't need to search for that imaginary fairytale. I wasted most of my life doing just that until I got smart and realized that it just doesn't exist. I'm good without a god.

If you are 'good without god', then why did you spend most of your life searching for him? When people are content they generally stop searching. But let's say you were deceived into thinking there was something worth seeking (for most of your life), then why the bitter attitude toward others who are 'deceived'? One might expect compassion and understanding from someone who went through the same thing

Indoctrination from birth is one reason why I spent many years looking for him. Also, as a child, my mother felt the need to introduce me to Catholicism and more than one different type of Christianity. That left me even more confused. As an adult I had questions that no member of clergy ever satisfied. Finally, I came to Atheism and realized that it made more sense to me and my eyes were open. 

That said, I am not saying that there is or isn't a god or any gods. I'm saying that I personally have never come across any concrete, scientific evidence that such an entity has ever existed. Therefore, since there is no credible, documented, scientific evidence, I do not believe in just faith that something exists. I stopped believing in imaginary friends when I was a child. 

As far as my attitude goes, for the most part, I am more than happy to have compassion and understanding towards others who decide that they want to believe in a magical sky daddy. More power to 'em! However, I do not have to respect them or their beliefs just because they hold them. The moment a theist feels it's their right to shove their beliefs in my face, is the moment I no longer have to have compassion or understanding for them. If my lack of beliefs cannot be respected, theists should expect the same in turn.

[GrandizerII]

silverspine, loving the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, etc means putting God first in your life; it doesn't mean devoting yourself to full knowledge of scripture or doctrines that were formulated decades after Jesus' supposed utterance of these words. As a former Evangelical myself, I knew many Christians IRL who aren't well read when it comes to the Bible, who don't know much about the history of the church, who don't really understand the doctrine of the Trinity (hell, even learned Christians get this one wrong) but nevertheless believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and clearly live a life devoted to him, perhaps even more obviously and modestly than you do.

[silverspine]

In the bible, the church refers to the laity, not the priests and elites.  So if one is criticizing the church, it is indeed legitimate to sample the rank and file.  That's what defines a religion.  Not the specific views of a minority.

In the bible, the church refers to a group with neither laity nor elite. Rank and file is all there is, and ought to be. But does that include everyone who claims to be a christian? Jesus calls out some of the same sort of religious hypocrites that atheists do, and warns about the hypocrites that will come in his name. If this survey includes all such people, it would certainly reflect the majority. But the survey itself proves that many people labeled as 'evangelicals' don't know what they believe in, therefore cannot have faith in it, therefore cannot really be Christians, because faith is a requirement. So if this survey is about people who make a false claim to faith, then i agree. I only debate that this survey applies to true Christians, because that is in itself a contradiction since they must necessarily know what they believe in. I do admit to uncertainty on some of the minor doctrines of Christianity, but it is the tenets that are in question.

---

silverspine, loving the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, etc means putting God first in your life; it doesn't mean devoting yourself to full knowledge of scripture or doctrines that were formulated decades after Jesus' supposed utterance of these words. As a former Evangelical myself, I knew many Christians IRL who aren't well read when it comes to the Bible, who don't know much about the history of the church, who don't really understand the doctrine of the Trinity (hell, even learned Christians get this one wrong) but nevertheless believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and clearly live a life devoted to him, perhaps even more obviously and modestly than you do.

I believe this topic is about the tenets of Christian faith, not all the minor doctrines or full knowledge of scripture, certainly not church history

[Minimalist]

A simple explanation would be a divine spirit which is perfect in wisdom, knowledge and power.

That leaves Yahweh the Bloody-Handed out in the cold.... as the Greeks knew long ago.

"God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)."

Celsus c 180

How come the Greeks dreamed up a god who was perfect but xtians can only imagine a schlepper who has to keep doing things over?

[silverspine]

Fascinating analogy.  Unfortunately, typical people such as those polled don't simply embrace their religious beliefs at Easter or Christmas.  Given what I know of evangelicals in general, that would seem to be as far from the case as possible.  Nor would they be described as not loving and caring about their faith.

As Hume has noted, in so far as an analogy departs in the specifics of how the things are similar, it loses credibility until the point at which it is no longer a credible argument.  I think you've reached that point.

The point was not the once a year attendance, it was lack of understanding to what is supposed to be of great importance in one's life