It's the bolded that is not emphasized enough in "Christianity", especially in many of the forms in the West. If somehow the message that specific adherents of "Christianity" had longer life expectancy, lived healthier and more "abundant life" ( depending on specific measures ) and exhibited near-altruistic behavior or manifested sacrificial love in concrete ways, then some of the world would take notice. Of course, some of the world, being in darkness, would continue in its worldly ways. I agree that "sucess" isn't defined as how successful explanatory models are. "Sucess" should be defined as living a reflective life pleasing to "G-d" to the extent that others will follow "Christ Jesus".

The better question is: How important is it to show that theism is the best way to understand the world?

Much of what you and zumby discuss in the posts following this one is worthy of comment, but let's get a few things cleared up first.

Fair enough. I've stated a few times that my main interests lie in the field of biblical interpretation and that "genuine" philosophical and theological questions only interest me soandso much. There's a reason why I stay out of the free will debate or discussions of theodicy.

So it's not only to be expected that my arguments in a thread like this will be flawed - it would be outrageous if they weren't (or if their flaws went undetected). I don't see why you, for example, who knows better, couldn't simply provide a smartened-up version of arguments/accounts for either side. I, for one, have no problems doing exactly that when we're discussing topics in which I'm qualified to do so.
Actually, I was under the impression of at least having alluded to that in my OP - it may have been lost among the noise. A very rough version is that "more science-positive theology" is not as simple to convey. If we take your poll as an example again, there are so far 7 mentionings of "scriptural inaccuracies" as being among the major reasons for them becoming (or staying) atheist. Those 7 reasons are no legit reasons - they shouldn't even be there. But realizing that requires a somewhat more sophisticated approach to questions such as divine inspiraton of scripture, relevance and reliability of scripture, truth, authority etc. Once a better understanding of these notions and their interrelations is achieved - I would assume - the "scriptural inaccuracies" would cease to be a major reason. Other reasons may take their place, but this one would and should be gone. However, gaining such an understanding requires commitment - something that "we" are no longer willing to invest w/out further good reasons.
Partially that is because I have not claimed such a thing. I've referred to the current intellectual climate of general public discussion which favors short and catchy arguments/phrases over protracted but often more accurate portrayals of positions and discussions therof. Do you want to question that observation? Furthermore, I've mentioned the ever-accellerating nature of modern societies that commit the individual to making more decisions about more things faster (from the selection of music chanel to political affiliation and choice of carreer) and as far as my "university background" goes - that's an observation that's pretty much a given. I wasn't aware that it's a contested observation/interpretation of reality in a modern society.


No, I don't, because in the OP I've said "One could legitimately wonder..." and in my reply to Xylo I said "I have little reason to believe..." Well, now I have a little more reason to believe. Thanks for the link.

See above. I was expecting both sides to chime in to improve both sides of the argument. That's basically what a RTG forum that's not just a pool for pissy-fights should be about, no?

Moving on...

I completely agree. However I think one thing deserves at least recognition: Max Planck once said (whether that is urban legend or not, I don't know) "A new, bold scientific idea is not so much gaining ground in that it's opponents are won over by arguments, but they simply die away. The next generation then grows up taking that new idea for granted." I'm not trying to spin this into an argument either way, I'd just ask to recognize that there's some truth to it at least in the sense that we often have an idealized rationalistic view of how and why we actually decide on the stuff we do.

So, while the church is rigid, dogmatic, stubborn etc. - in some sense that's just what an adherent of an empirically wrong theory*** is "supposed" to do. If one had a stronger stomach than I have, one could even go as far as claiming that the church's resistance to change is instrumental in cementing scientific advancements in the way they are being cemented as there are few as stubborn as the pope.


***and by that I mean the "particulars" such as geocentric vs. heliocentric system, creationism vs. evolution etc.

I'm happy to apply the principle of charity when it's clear what is being argued, as I have done with the arguments presented by Well Named. But it's not clear to me what you are arguing in the OP, especially given exchanges like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zumby

You have provided no data to indicate that we should take seriously your assertion that society is 'dumbed down',

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freteloo

Partially that is because I have not claimed such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thread topic:

Atheism is on the rise!! - Ya, mankind haz teh dumb...]

Absolutely. But your OP is a stream of consciousness that contains potential for at least half a dozen interesting topics of discussion, and until you at least state the topic more clearly it's virtually impossible for anyone to start engaging or strengthening the arguments:

e.g.
"Why is atheism on the rise?"
"To what extent is the correlation between education and atheism responsible for the increase in atheism?"
"To what extent is the correlation between atheism and education influenced by the natural sciences?"
"Why is theology and faith-based epistemology not as popular as it used to be?"
"Are science and theology in a zero-sum game?"
"To what extent is the conflict between science and religion predicated on naive theological views"
"Does increased confidence in methodological naturalism justify metaphysical naturalism?"
"What are the metrics of success for faith-based epistemology?"

You are quoting an obvious lolcat-inspired line back to me as evidence for a position I supposedly seriously entertain?

Fwiw, I did say in the OP "Added with the general societal proclivity for short cuts, easy outs and simple truths, that fact in itself does not mean that the rise of atheism is actually just the result of a furhter dumbing down of society." However, given that I also prefaced that paragraph with the admission that I was being polemic, opening my entire post with a little ribbing of MB, and expressedly acknowledeged in post 10 again that my opening had a polemic tone, I was assuming a charitable reading would be the standard procedure, not something one had to expressedly call for. In any case, let it be known that I am asking for a charitable reading.

That's good, no?

I think we agree on the broad outlines of this. As this is (largely) an empirical question, I wouldn't think going into this by way of debate will proove ultimately fruitful: In the end the one who "wins" will be the one who predicts best what polls/studies show (or: "... predicts best the kind of conclusions supported by what polls/studies show.") I would assume we agree that it's a combination of factors, prominently among them being science (often via better education) offering an alternative and superior explanation to many questions, theological claims lacking sufficient evidence backing them up, religious institutions and proponents propagating seemingly absurd, outdated and uncharitable ideas/moral views etc.

Again a question that is empirical in nature. I can only speculate (or try to google my way to wisdom) and again, the "winner" will be determined by who comes closest to predicting what studies will eventually suggest as being the extend.

This, stated as a hypothesis ("There IS... that IS influenced..."), is something I believe I've posited in the OP and was taken up by WN. So yes, that would be among the points I think would merit discussion, at least insofar as it'd be interesting to see if we can agree on the hypothesis. The "to what extend" is again ultimately being answered empirically, so I don't think we'll have much fun discussing that to the end, but we could try drawing some broad delineations.

This, too, I think, I've touched upon in the OP and suggested an explanation: Even just an appreciation of theological position (regardless of their explanatory merit) requires some kind of understanding of them that oftentimes is no longer present (and a societal climate that doesn't suggest finding the time to gain said understanding). Hence, a drop in popularity is at least partially simply due to a lack of understanding of theological positions.
Unfortunatley, I don't even know what that means/is supposed to mean.
Check.
Check.
Check.

Again i like how you have to be wicked smart and have massive amounts of education to understand God and his word. Come on God you can do better then that.

If that's implied by anything I've said then I've made a mistake somewhere, although I think there's a distinction that has to be made between the level of understanding required to follow Christianity as a path and the level of understanding required to try to justify it intellectually, or understand it within a broader philosophical context.

You don't have to be very intelligent or educated to simply listen to or read the gospels and decide to follow them.

Not just you. Seems like a recurring theme that to Truly understand the bible you need years of study.

My current Bible has 1400 pages and very small print. My version of "Crime and Punishment" has 700 pages and normalish/large print. So maybe 500 pages in small print. So let's add The Idiot and Brothers Karamasov.

How many literary scholars, do you think, would hold that you can "truly understand" the major works of Dostojevsky without "years of study"?

I just dont get it. You have the smartest being in existence so you would think he would be the best ever at communicating a massage. Yet in order to fully understand or itt's case, justly reject that message, you need years of study and smarts. Makes no sense.

Guess he doesn't believe in kiss.

Imo god jumped the gun with the bible. If he'd held on for a couple of millenia he could just have brought out a kindle version. Something that updates as we go along. So, for example, as things change or become redundant they can just be erased from the book and it can be slimmed down in size.

Better yet a simple video, with squeals if necessary.

that would be genius. He could also post updates on how to fight global warming (and he could convince evangelicals that climate change is real, for that matter).

Yeah, and he could drop the stuff about shell fish, reduce the slavery parts to a simple 'slavery is wrong' and then include some other information that would be handy. He could have something about gun control, which would be very good, or even some lesser stuff about how good christians shouldn't slowroll the nuts in poker etc etc

Yeah, but too much intelligence or education can sometimes lead to...

The term "analysis paralysis" or "paralysis of analysis" refers to over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation, or citing sources, so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, when on the way to a better solution.

He could confirm/deconfirm Obamas faith and birth place... - I'm sold.

I am the poster child of analysis paralysis

This would have been a helpful response to the first response ITT:

Swings and roundabouts.

Yeah I'll +1 this for simplicity.

Okay

Zero-sum games

Quote:

In game theory and economic theory, a zero–sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s).[...] It is especially used to point out cases where a person incorrectly assumes that an interaction between different parties can only be competitive when in fact the parties may gain more by cooperation (e.g. the fallacious assumption that business transactions always have strictly winners and losers).

Doesn't narrow it down much. I'll try to respond as concisely as possible given the wide scope later in the week.

I can't hit you... you have already established that any attempt on my part to do so is more than likely due to not being capable of understanding or not bothering to understand.


As for the hypostatic union specifically; Is my disbelief in superman less rational because I don't know how he can fly?

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I am not sure yet. I will have to think about it some more.

Birther evangelical from Alabama?