Atheism & Islam: Is Their Growth A Threat To Democracy?
Posted by truthtalklive on 23 October, 2009
This post was filed in Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Evolution, Faith, Islam and has 53 comments
On this edition of Truthtalk Live, Alex McFarland, President of Southern Evangelical Seminary, discusses two fast-growing “isms” within our culture.
To discuss atheism (and the new book by Richard Dawkins promoting Darwinian evolution), Alex interviews Brian Huffling (a Ph.D. candidate, and a proponent of Christian Apologetics).
Alex will also interview Phil Cohn (an expert on Islam and the implications of its rise in the West).
For information on the upcoming National Conference on Christian Apologetics click the banner below:
53 Comments on “Atheism & Islam: Is Their Growth A Threat To Democracy?”
Some ways in which atheism has gained traction among people I know is that it exhibits traits which, I would argue, should have been typical of Christians all along.
Atheism — at least as certain vocal people practice it — shows an unflinching desire to understand the scientific facts of the world. Many Christians, in contrast, refuse to accept certain straightforward scientific observations if they conflict with their personally favored theology, or will cling to falsified constructs if those constructs agree with their preferred idea of what God is like. I would argue that, since Christians believe (1) that God has revealed Himself in creation and (2) that God is bigger than we can possibly imagine, Christians should be the most reluctant people on the planet to try to redefine reality. We should be the most open of all people to learning whatever lessons the natural world has to teach us, willing to give up every preconceived notion, lest we find that we are trying to restrict God to something that will fit in our brains, worshipping our image of what we expect Him to be rather than Who He really is, and insensibly expecting reality itself to follow.
Atheism — at least as certain vocal people practice it — is also willing to embrace uncertainty, a humble knowledge that it is not and cannot be in possession of all the facts. Many Christians, on the other hand, have confused having the truth with having the answers, and would rather shout down disagreement than carefully listen to find out whether their conceptual opponent actually has a valid point or two (especially when there’s no ready answer to be had). Again, since God is much bigger than we, one would think that Christians would be the most careful thinkers, the most willing to accept their limited knowledge, and the most humble before their own uncertainty where mystery exists. This has not been so.
If Christians were, in general, more willing to follow a God Who kept them in constant, total amazement, with secrets of His to be discovered by those with a questioning heart and an open mind, people might be more curious about what our pilgrimage was really all about. As it is, if we pretend that we understand it all, no one’s curiosity is piqued; after all, if we have a pretty good handle on it, there can’t be much to it.
There are many other reasons why atheism attracts some — pragmatism, perceived personal moral freedom, and so on, and all of these are worth understanding and discussing. It seems the most tragic, however, when people give reasons for being drawn to atheism — or, in its opposite form, away from Christianity — by traits that should have been practiced by us like no one else on Earth.
Wow. So much. But a few brief points that the show addressed.
Seth and his guest asserted that if “evolutionists” are consistent with their ideas, that they would “help evolution along” by destroying the weak, poor, and elderly. This, of course, is the naturalistic fallacy — that a description of the way things are should be taken as a prescription for the way things ought to be. The theory of evolution is descriptive; in much the same way, the theory of universal gravitation tells you what will happen if you jump off a thirty-story building. What you choose to do with respect to this description is up to you.
Humans are also a social species. Evolution tells us that social species improve their fitness through cooperation and acts of altruism. (I’ll give citations if you like of studies that indicate this; I have before on this site.) Even if we were to take evolution as the basis of our moral system, it would imply treating other people well, even to our own detriment.
The two of them touched on the Islamic notion of Taqiyya — a notion peculiar to Shia Muslims, not Islam in general — which argues that Muslim believers can conceal their faith under threat, persecution, or compulsion. What about the idea that one can lie to try to convince other people that one’s beliefs are true — such as the idea that macroevolution does not occur, or that we have never seen one species turn into another, or that there are no transitional fossils, or countless other half-truths and outright falsehoods?
Seriously. This seems so typical of creationist “reasoning” — to claim that because your opponents don’t engage in a logical fallacy, they’re the ones who are being willfully ignorant.
The predatory way these ideas are fed to an audience in the name of God is maddening. It gives all of apologetics (if not all of Christianity) a bad name.
Twould be grand if this Seth would come here and debate with us evolutionists for awhile.
Oh, yes. I’m all for written exchanges, where ideas can be well-researched and carefully presented, and records of presented ideas exist so that they can be built upon, expanded, and clarified. Less room for verbal trickery. Let’s have it. What do you say, Seth? Care to redeem the idea that Christians can handle rational thought, evidence, and honesty before your apologetics conference gets underway and we everyday Christians have to apologize to everyone around us with a couple of brain cells to rub together?
MattF: Even if we were to take evolution as the basis of our moral system, it would imply treating other people well, even to our own detriment.
Many atheists do just that and ‘justifiably’ reject the notion of God…and especially any need for God in relation to morality. Should Christians egg on the evolutionarily moral atheists? Is there anything unique or special about belief in God in your eyes? Is blasphemy wrong?
I’m surprised you seem proud of atheists – as they are among the proudest people I have ever witnessed. Are you “paving the way” for atheism? I don’t get it.
b baggins: Should Christians egg on the evolutionarily moral atheists?
In their atheism? Of course not. It’s a mistake to think that recognizing the moral correctness of a position is the same as recognizing the correctness of a position.
Many atheists, for example, recognize that lying is wrong. They understand this keenly enough to recognize when religious people are doing it to defend their beliefs. What kind of message does that send? Why would they be inclined to dig deeper if it appears in this instance that they are made of deeper moral character than we?
b baggins: Is there anything unique or special about belief in God in your eyes? Is blasphemy wrong?
Of course. Recognizing the simple fact that there is something certain vocal atheists get right that many Christians don’t is not even close to saying that belief in God means nothing or that blasphemy is okay.
b baggins: Are you “paving the way” for atheism? I don’t get it.
No more than recognizing the family values typical of Mormons — something I also wish Christians had — means that I think Mormonism is correct, or that I mean to pave the way for Mormons.
Read some of the prophets of the Old Testament, especially passages where God berated Israel for getting stuff wrong that the pagan nations around them were getting right (e.g., Ezekiel 16, paying special attention to verse 27, where the Philistines were ashamed of the lewd conduct of Israel; or verses 47, 48, and 52, where pagan nations are shown to be more corrupt than Israel). The desire was clearly not to convert Israel to paganism, nor to “pave the way” for paganism in Israel, but to goad Israel into waking up to their own moral ignorance and to start doing what they ought to have been doing anyway.
Recognizing why atheism draws people is not the same as advocating atheism itself. The point is that we claim to have God, we ought to know better, and we should be ashamed of ourselves and repent from our haughty actions. It ought to be a wakeup call, not a justification.
If Christianity is “threatened”, it is not from without but within that the problem lies. We will never have to worry about external forces if we are true disciples of Christ. But if we worship capitalism, Americanism, fundamentalism, our own interpretation of the Bible, our own way of life, then we will no doubt live to see what we worship brought down by other forces or simply eroded by time itself. All “isms” are of man, and therefore no more than dust. Most Christianity as practiced by the west is no more than a grasping after material wealth and a false sense of security and exceptionalism. As MattF pointed out, the prophets warned Israel of the very same over 2500 years ago, and if we truly heed the message of Christ we know that we are already the victors so why do we spend so much time and treasure trying to conquer the world instead of saving it? If people are drawn to atheism and Islam, it is because Christianity as practiced by the west look so little like Christ.
MattF: verses 47, 48, and 52, where pagan nations are shown to be more corrupt than Israel
Obviously, in these verses, it is Israel that is shown to be more corrupt than certain pagan nations. Hopefully, my point was clear enough despite my slip of the keyboard.
MattF: In their atheism? Of course not. It’s a mistake to think that recognizing the moral correctness of a position is the same as recognizing the correctness of a position.
So you’re saying that atheists are morally correct, but not correct? How could they even be morally correct and blasphemers (which Jesus said was contrary to the greatest commandment – the foundation of morality)? Oh yea, you said there is a new basis for morality, evolution, and it works fine, supposedly.
MattF: Many atheists, for example, recognize that lying is wrong. They understand this keenly enough to recognize when religious people are doing it to defend their beliefs. What kind of message does that send? Why would they be inclined to dig deeper if it appears in this instance that they are made of deeper moral character than we?
I don’t know that the available evidence requires acceptance of evolution – which is surely what you’re referring to, and there is much that evolution doesn’t explain that it’s supposed to. The point being, there is room to doubt evolution. Religious people who believe in creationism aren’t lying if they believe what they say is true, they could even doubt it with good reason. You praise atheists for their uncertainty (as opposed to creationists), but, contrary to what you say, both you and they adhere to evolution with great certainty – calling it fact and the opposition liars and idiots. Considering that there is room to doubt evolution though, a creationist position can be intellectually honest. Thus your moral elevation of atheists over Christians – non-evolutionists specifically – seems unwarranted. The debate on this topic is on going and not settled. So why would they be inclined to think non-evolutionist Christians are liars, as you do?
MattF: Of course. Recognizing the simple fact that there is something certain vocal atheists get right that many Christians don’t is not even close to saying that belief in God means nothing or that blasphemy is okay.
Should an atheist believe in God? Why?
MattF: The theory of evolution is descriptive; in much the same way, the theory of universal gravitation tells you what will happen if you jump off a thirty-story building. What you choose to do with respect to this description is up to you.
The theory of evolution tells people what will happen when certain traits are selected over others – saying the sky is the limit. Such that if the people of the world wanted future humans to be smarter, stronger, capable of flight, photosynthesizing or whatever is possible…they could establish constraints on reproduction (combined with gene modification?) to try and usher in a new kind of human. Could evolution produce a life form capable of surviving the harsh environment of space? If evolution can serve as a basis of morality for atheists – and societal justice, then why not as the basis for modifying intelligent life to endure future conditions or something of that nature?
b baggins: So you’re saying that atheists are morally correct, but not correct? How could they even be morally correct and blasphemers (which Jesus said was contrary to the greatest commandment – the foundation of morality)?
No. I’m saying that certain vocal atheists have exercised an action which is morally correct, and which has regrettably been in short supply among Christians who ought to know better. Do you honestly not understand the difference between that and claiming that they are correct?
Was God in error to point out that pagans were getting some things morally right (while Israel was not) in, for example, the book of Ezekiel?
People still possess a fundamental ability to determine the difference between right and wrong, even if the basis is missing.
b baggins: Oh yea, you said there is a new basis for morality, evolution, and it works fine, supposedly.
That sentence was phrased in the subjunctive case (“Even if we were to take evolution as the basis of our moral system…”). That means it’s a hypothetical, a suggestion that one should, for the benefit of understanding the subject matter, imagine something to be the case that is not. Or, to use smaller words, it’s not real.
It does not mean that I think it is a valid basis for a moral system; in fact, the language I chose should reveal that I do not. I merely meant to point out that even if you wanted to argue that it is, the basis that would result is not what certain Christian pundits like to claim that it is.
b baggins: I don’t know that the available evidence requires acceptance of evolution – which is surely what you’re referring to, and there is much that evolution doesn’t explain that it’s supposed to.
Evolution is the only testable and falsifiable theory we have that is consistent with the facts. That said, no scientific theory explains everything, even everything related to its subject matter — nor does it pretend to. Only creationists would mistake this for a fault.
While this does not prove that evolution is correct — there is always a chance, however minute, that a different but compatible explanation is really what’s going on — the evidence does show that some explanations for biological diversity are wrong. Instantaneous creation, for example.
b baggins: The point being, there is room to doubt evolution.
Sure. There’s room to doubt every scientific theory. The fact of the matter is that creationist teachers spend a lot of time repeating long-debunked arguments, engaging in simple (but reasonable-sounding) logical fallacy, and just making stuff up to try to bolster their points. No salient, evidence-based point has been brought against evolution, in spite of a century and a half of rather concentrated effort. On the other hand, no creationist has even seen fit to address any of the evidences I’ve posted that contraindicate instantaneous creation.
b baggins: Religious people who believe in creationism aren’t lying if they believe what they say is true, they could even doubt it with good reason.
That is not, and has never been, my point. Religious people who believe in creation are either lying or deeply mistaken when they say that the facts agree with their stance, or that “real science” is consistent with their teaching.
It stoops to the level of lying when they have been shown the error of their thinking or evidence that shows that what they say is not true, yet they continue to repeat the same lines anyway and expect people to believe them.
b baggins: You praise atheists for their uncertainty (as opposed to creationists), but, contrary to what you say, both you and they adhere to evolution with great certainty – calling it fact and the opposition liars and idiots.
I am certain of evolution in the same way that I am certain of the existence of electrons. Experiment and observation have repeatedly borne out results consistent with their existence, and have never shown their nonexistence (in spite of the fact that science’s strength lies in showing what is wrong). There is powerful, compelling, and voluminous evidence to support evolution; even though science always leaves room for doubt, there are some ideas so powerfully established that doubting them is silly (like gravity).
What I mean when I laud their acceptance of uncertainty is that there are questions for which answers simply do not exist because there is no evidence to suggest an answer, and that they have been far better than we Christians have generally been at admitting what those things are.
b baggins: Considering that there is room to doubt evolution though, a creationist position can be intellectually honest.
Sure — in the sense that one can be intellectually honest in their doubt of the existence of pathogenic bacteria. You can point out that there just might be another way that people get sick from certain diseases, but it’s something that’s so powerfully supported by the evidence that I’d argue that people would be right in dismissing you as either ignorant or a terrible liar.
b baggins: The debate on this topic is on going and not settled. So why would they be inclined to think non-evolutionist Christians are liars, as you do?
A lie is not measured by whether or not people are debating it. A lie is simply continuing to say things that one knows are not true, e.g., “the natural philosophical end of evolution is elimination of the weak”, “the Nazi genocide of Jews was justified by evolution”, “we’ve never directly observed macroevolution” (whether, by that, you mean a change in species or a change in “kind”), “there are no transitional fossils”, “‘evolutionists’ embrace the theory because they dislike the idea of a God to Whom they are responsible”, “creationists and ‘evolutionists’ are merely analyzing the same data with different starting assumptions and coming to different conclusions”, “creationism is consistent with ‘real’ science”, “the scientific community is not convinced of evolution”, “‘irreducible complexity’ reveals ‘intelligent design’”, and on and on and on and on and on…
b baggins: Should an atheist believe in God? Why?
Are you honestly asking the question?
Because the presence or absence of this belief is part of a framework of faith which has a message with profound implications on the fate of their eternal souls. Humans must recongnize their spiritual isolation from a holy God and that only Christ has provided the means of restoration or face eternal judgment. It’s difficult to see how they could come to faith in Christ without believing in God.
Or are you asking what kind of proof exists for God’s existence? None in a strictly empirical sense, I’m afraid — which makes sense, since faith is apparently required to come to God in the first place (Hebrews 11:6, for example, says “… must believe that He is…”, and not “… must conclude that He is…”, for example, or “… must demonstrate that He is…” — emphasis mine). A number of interesting and compelling arguments can be made for God, but ultimately, there’s no scientific test that will unequivocally reveal Him.
b baggins: The theory of evolution tells people what will happen when certain traits are selected over others – saying the sky is the limit.
It says no such thing. In order for natural selection to operate, the traits that can be passed on must be naturally realizable and better adapted variations on what exists. It may not even be possible for “the best” variation to be selected if, for example, getting to it requires steps through serious adaptational disadvantage.
b baggins: Such that if the people of the world wanted future humans to be smarter, stronger, capable of flight, photosynthesizing or whatever is possible…they could establish constraints on reproduction (combined with gene modification?) to try and usher in a new kind of human.
That wouldn’t, strictly speaking, be natural selection, now, would it?
Again, evolution merely tells us how things happen. It does not tell us what we ought to do with that information.
It also seems that you’re trying to make a case that natural selection is the only force that drives greater adaptation, and not even evolution claims that this is so.
But perhaps we’re on the cusp of a potential falsification. Are you arguing that hereditable variation cannot make the human species more fit in whatever environment they find themselves? If so, how do you explain observed beneficial mutations within the human species?
b baggins: Could evolution produce a life form capable of surviving the harsh environment of space?
That’s an interesting question, but I’m inclined to doubt it. Life seems to require the ability to be permeable, so that nutrients or metabolizing agents can be absorbed and waste expelled. Permeability is bad for viability in a vacuum.
b baggins: If evolution can serve as a basis of morality for atheists – and societal justice, then why not as the basis for modifying intelligent life to endure future conditions or something of that nature?
My point is not that evolution serves as an adequate basis for morality. My point is that even if you were to pretend that it is, that basis would not assert what Seth and his guest insisted that it asserts.
Clarifications, comments:
“Religious people who believe in creationism aren’t lying if they believe what they say is true, they could even doubt it [evolution] with good reason.”
“So why would they [atheists] be inclined to think non-evolutionist Christians are liars [or idiots], as you do?”
“Could evolution produce an [intelligent/human-like] life form capable of surviving the harsh environment of space?”
You’ve also said that observation rules out the possibility of creation, as creationists believe it, but I don’t think you have proven you or anyone can be certain of that, so I think the general possibility remains. Considering how little you understand about the universe – how uncertain you are, during creation the “laws of physics” as we know them may have been untenable. Why should creationists have to adapt their interpretation of the Bible to the current scientific consensus – which means taking on a strange interpretation? What difference would it make to their lives? It is unknown to me why you are so busy with this topic. Surely you must be caring for and tending the flock as Jesus asked you to…but I just cannot place my finger on how.
MattF: Religious people who believe in creation are either lying or deeply mistaken when they say that the facts agree with their stance, or that “real science” is consistent with their teaching.
For the sake of accuracy, make that “… who believe in creationism“.
MattF: Do you honestly not understand the difference between that and claiming that they are correct?
So the atheists you are praising are wrong then?
MattF: Was God in error to point out that pagans were getting some things morally right (while Israel was not) in, for example, the book of Ezekiel?
It is written that Israel was worse than the pagan nations in some ways…not that the pagans were morally right.
MattF: People still possess a fundamental ability to determine the difference between right and wrong, even if the basis is missing.
No, they possess the ability to be filthy rags when the basis for being more than that is missing.
MattF: That means it’s a hypothetical, a suggestion that one should, for the benefit of understanding the subject matter, imagine something to be the case that is not. …it’s not real…
So you weren’t indicating anything true through your hypothetical, but something false or impossible? That was a bit tricky of you, pretending to make a point.
MattF: Evolution is the only testable and falsifiable theory we have that is consistent with the facts.
So what?
MattF: Instantaneous creation, for example.
I haven’t heard of any Bible believers believing such a thing. The Bible describes a process that is taken by God over a particular time period. How He achieves so much in apparently so little time is not fully described, though its God we’re talking about… The “laws of physics” as we know them depend on Him.
MattF: On the other hand, no creationist has even seen fit to address any of the evidences I’ve posted that contraindicate instantaneous creation.
No wonder, you cannot offer up evidence that contradicts God creating the universe as described in the Bible.
MattF: That is not, and has never been, my point. Religious people who believe in creation are either lying or deeply mistaken when they say that the facts agree with their stance, or that “real science” is consistent with their teaching.
The facts can agree with a creationist position. No lies or mistakes needed.
MattF: There is powerful, compelling, and voluminous evidence to support evolution; even though science always leaves room for doubt, there are some ideas so powerfully established that doubting them is silly (like gravity).
Doubting or being ignorant of the scientific explanation of gravity is not the same as doubting that when I jump off a building I will fall, is it?
MattF: You can point out that there just might be another way that people get sick from certain diseases, but it’s something that’s so powerfully supported by the evidence that I’d argue that people would be right in dismissing you as either ignorant or a terrible liar.
Then you’d be wrong. You can’t be dismissive with uncertainty.
MattF: A lie is not measured by whether or not people are debating it. A lie is simply continuing to say things that one knows are not true…
People debate in this case because the truth is not easily discerned or provable one way or the other. Neither side is known to be untrue, so respective adherents surely aren’t lying.
MattF: It says no such thing. In order for natural selection to operate, the traits that can be passed on must be naturally realizable and better adapted variations on what exists.
Who knows what is naturally realizable? Scientists can’t even explain what is current, much less the potential of life in the future.
kash: ” But if we worship capitalism, Americanism, fundamentalism, our own interpretation of the Bible, our own way of life, then we will no doubt live to see what we worship brought down by other forces or simply eroded by time itself. All “isms” are of man, and therefore no more than dust. Most Christianity as practiced by the west is no more than a grasping after material wealth and a false sense of security and exceptionalism.”
Excuse me, but this nation left capitalism in the dust 2 generations ago. As for grasping for material wealth, I will agree but government promoted the concept. When interest rates are kept artifically low (the Fed controls interest rates) it discourages savings while encouraging speculation and excessive spending. Add to it the fact that government now taxes interest earned (not so a generation ago) and you have all the ingrediants to “grasping for material wealth” and as I said, wild speculation.
The problems with Christianity is that far too many Christians have adopted the “Traditions of Men.” And that include you kash. By the way, you forgot to mention one other “ism”, Statism, of which you embrace with fervor. Get the mote out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck in your brother’s eye.
BTW, I noticed that you did not respond to my message where I posted the definition of Statism, aka. Fascism. It fits perfectly the direction this nation is taking, and far too many Christians are more devout in their political affiliations than with their faith in the Creator.
“BTW, I noticed that you did not respond to my message where I posted the definition of Statism, aka. Fascism. It fits perfectly the direction this nation is taking, and far too many Christians are more devout in their political affiliations than with their faith in the Creator.”
Ok, here is my response. I think you are wrong.
b baggins: You’ve also said that observation rules out the possibility of creation, as creationists believe it, but I don’t think you have proven you or anyone can be certain of that, so I think the general possibility remains.
Please examine posts 416 and 428 of part 1 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”.
One can always insist that the creationist model has some validity because, after all, God can do anything, including make things look as if something happened that really didn’t. However, it is a mistake to claim that this stance is consistent with “real science”.
If you want to say science is wrong, then fine; at least you’re logically consistent, if a little politically scary. But don’t say that your stance is really consistent with science when it rather trivially and obviously is not.
b baggins: Considering how little you understand about the universe – how uncertain you are, during creation the “laws of physics” as we know them may have been untenable.
Not all of these evidences have to do with creation itself. They show, for example, that the speed of light has been consistent for much longer than creationists of the young-Earth stripe claim that the Universe has even been around. They show that the geologic column cannot have been deposited by a global flood. If you look at post 184 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”, you will see evidences that biological diversity didn’t happen very quickly, and that it came as a result of some kind of descent involving inherited characteristics that could be modified. The nature of the evidence we have, in other words, cannot be explained away as simply as “Maybe things were different once”.
It is also a leap quite outside of science to suppose without evidence that “maybe things were different once”. It requires magical wishing with zero empirical support (physical phenomena are interconnected, and changes in one thing — the speed of light, the rate of radioactive decay, and so on — would require commensurate changes in other phenomena which should have left forensic evidence of the change from the weird values they once had to their current values, and we see none). To change the laws of nature as you see fit to conform to your personally favored philosophy is not science. It ignores one of the most fundamental principles science has: parsimony. In other words, if you have to bend and twist the laws of nature with no empirical evidence for the twisting in order to fit your ideas, you can’t then claim to be consistent with science.
On a more fundamental, theological level, it is somewhat disturbing to suppose that our evidence is illusory, since the current evidence appears to be fully consistent across multiple and independent lines of inquiry to look exactly as if evolution is true. There are countless ways God could have made things to be the slightest bit inconsistent with the theory; see post 104 of “Can a person be saved and still believe in evolution?”. Insisting that God just made things appear that amazingly consistent even though they are not is to posit a liar Deity, which I disagree with on Biblical grounds.
I am not claiming to know a great deal about the Universe. But I know some things that have been observed about it which indicate that some ideas about how it works or has worked are wrong. It’s a lot easier to prove that an explanation is wrong than that it is right.
If you wish to be precise, I am more concerned that creationists are dogmatically asserting something that is wrong than that they are not accepting something science currently accepts as right.
b baggins: Why should creationists have to adapt their interpretation of the Bible to the current scientific consensus – which means taking on a strange interpretation?
If the evidence is ubiquitous, compelling, and voluminous, it’s just a matter of recognizing that the message of the Bible is not primarily one of scientific education. Evolution is buttressed by the evidence to a degree beyond all but a few other theories in science.
Something, for example, changed the minds of most Christians that the passages which claim that the Earth is fixed and immobile must not be absolutely literal in the way they had thought, but must instead refer to a deeper truth. The evidence is clear that the Earth does move, but that does not affect the truth of Scripture; it merely affects the way we understand it.
The way creationists understand Genesis 1 and 2 is unequivocally false. It’s really that simple.
I don’t mean to say that Genesis 1 and 2 are false, any more than I mean to say that Scripture that refers to an immobile Earth are false; all I mean to say is that people’s understanding of it is false.
Of course, I’d like to see Christians be more humble than to require being bowled over by the scientific data before changing their minds; it would be much better for us to attempt to understand scientific fact even when it simply appears that reality might disagree with our interpretation — to be honest about why we think the way we do, but also be honest in the face of what we don’t know and how our preferred ideas might have to change.
Finally, “strange” (as in “strange interpretation”) is a subjective term. For hundreds of years, prominent Christian teachers taught that those who presumed to “believe” that the Earth moves and spins valued science more highly than Scripture, asked Christians to accept strange interpretations of the Holy Writ, and so on. (It’s amusing to go over some of these teachings and compare them to creationist diatribes against “evolutionists”.) It may seem strange if it’s unfamiliar — but that doesn’t mean that it’s not true.
b baggins: What difference would it make to their lives?
I can’t know every life, so I can’t catalog every answer. I can tell you how it’s changed my life, however.
Accepting evolution — or, to be more precise, understanding what is true and that creationism is not — has opened me to curiosity again. There are scientific evidences, as I’ve pointed out, that flatly contradict creationist rhetoric. Trying to continue to embrace creationism forced me to try to close my mind to these evidences. Being able to understand plain observations for what they are instead of trying to construct elaborate rationalizations to try to explain why people didn’t really see things happen that happened right before their eyes has, I think, brought me closer to the Creator Who put the Universe together in the first place. In short, I’ve felt a renewed sense of curiosity, open wonder, awe, and excitement about coming to know God through His creation that I haven’t had before God’s creation since I was a kid, and I honestly believe that it’s because I don’t have to look at the world with a blinkered sense that I know exactly what I’ll find before I look.
I believe this kind of open curiosity and willingness to follow God rather than a particular interpretation of His Word is precisely one of the ways in which Christ enjoined His disciples to be like little children.
In a related vein, new scientific studies are more prone to make me learn as much as I can about them and wonder about the majesty of God and the mystery of how He works His plans than to make me try to figure out how it fits my preferred ideas and interpretations. I am responsible to God Himself, not to a preferred exegesis, and that’s tremendously liberating.
I enjoy studying ancient history, and feel like I can almost wrap my head around six thousand or ten thousand years of time. Understanding that I worship a God Whose perspective is several orders of magnitude beyond that, and Who is bringing His plans to fruition with unparalleled and inevitable precision over that time — in spite of the amazing degree of control this would seem to require in scales far too large and far too small for my tiny little brain to contemplate — makes God seem so much bigger than if He poofs things into existence to get the ball rolling and wouldn’t let that ball roll for too long. (I’ve insisted before that one of the things that bothers me about creationism is that the creationist God is too small.)
It’s been invaluable to my witness to people who know a thing or two about the natural world to be able to be honest with plainly-observed fact — both for me (since I don’t feel like I have to lie for Jesus) and for them (who can see the significance of my pilgrimage in my life as my understanding changes). Many I speak to are rather sick of Christians who display terrible ignorance about the natural world, claim things that are true that aren’t (or things that aren’t true that are) by simple fiat, and in spite of their awful manglings and misrepresentations both of fact and of theories meant to explain those facts, claim superior knowledge of the facts, the theories, and the people who study them. It actually means something to people who are trying to learn when you have to admit that you don’t know.
My understanding of Scriptural passages outside of Genesis 1 and 2 has deepened and taken on much more immediate and relevant meaning since I have come to understand Genesis 1 and 2 differently (e.g., Romans 8 and Hebrews 4, which the young-Earth creationist must interpret figuratively).
I could go on, but you may want me to clarify some of these ideas. If you’re interested in pursuing this topic further, let me know if you’d prefer more depth or more breadth when it comes to the significance of intellectual honesty.
b baggins: Surely you must be caring for and tending the flock as Jesus asked you to…but I just cannot place my finger on how.
It’s really quite simple. I want teachers who are making stuff up to bolster their case to stop it, and I want Christians to be educated enough not to tolerate these teachers and to stop participating in their own delusion.
b baggins: So the atheists you are praising are wrong then?
They are wrong in their denial of God — which, as we both apparently agree, is a fundamental error.
They are right to laud the importance of open curiosity, and to embrace intellectual honesty in the face of uncertainty. They are also right to do any number of things that we recognize as moral goods: shunning murder, for example, to pick an easy one.
I can’t think of an instance where a group was wrong in every detail or right in every detail. Can you?
Why is it so bizarre to think that a group that makes a fundamental theological error would still be able to discern the difference between right and wrong in some other areas?
What about where Paul noticed that certain pagan speakers had a good point (e.g., Acts 17:28, or Titus 1:12)? Was he “paving the way” for paganism?
b baggins: It is written that Israel was worse than the pagan nations in some ways…not that the pagans were morally right.
Okay. And if this were the only place where this kind of message was delivered to God’s followers, you might have a point. But this isn’t the only passage where people outside the ones who supposedly know the truth are told to look at people outside the group who are doing certain things right. Consider Jesus’ diatribe against the chief priests and the elders — religious authorities in their day who should have known the truth like no one else! — in Matthew 21:31 (NASB): Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. Or Luke 18:9-17, where a Pharisee — who doubtless knew the Scripture inside and out — is shown behaving badly, whereas a publican gets it right.
Or how about an instance where people who weren’t Israel having a law that Israel didn’t follow? Ezekiel 5:7-8 (NASB, emphasis mine): “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Because you have more turmoil than the nations which surround you and have not walked in My statutes, nor observed My ordinances, nor observed the ordinances of the nations which surround you, ‘therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I, even I, am against you, and I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations.
Yes, other nations were getting it wrong in many ways, and Israel was described as worse. But Israel was also not following rules that the other nations were, and that was bad, too.
b baggins: No, they possess the ability to be filthy rags when the basis for being more than that is missing.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not claiming that their actions are impressing God (which is where this “filthy rags” description of good deeds comes from — Isaiah 64:6, which is talking about deeds done by God’s people, by the way); I’m claiming that they are doing things right that Christians ought to have been doing much more frequently and in much greater numbers.
b baggins: So you weren’t indicating anything true through your hypothetical, but something false or impossible? That was a bit tricky of you, pretending to make a point.
And it’s tricky of you to twist my words.
I wasn’t pretending to make a point. I was attempting to make my point by creating a hypothetical situation that does not correspond to reality. That’s a valid technique.
Here’s the point. Evolution is not a valid basis for morality (I agree with Seth and his guest on this point). Even if you were to use it as a basis, however, it would not lead to the conclusions that Seth and his guest asserted that it leads to. Seth and his guest used bad reasoning to denounce evolution. That’s it. Why is this so difficult for you to get a handle on?
b baggins: MattF: Evolution is the only testable and falsifiable theory we have that is consistent with the facts.
So what?
So while it’s technically possible that there’s a compatible explanation out there that’s what’s really going on, and while it’s technically true that there’s always room for doubt in science, pointing this out without the presence of a viable alternative is a null statement. It’s stating things that are plainly true, and not providing any evidence that the currently understood paradigm is false; it’s not even showing a different paradigm which could also be true.
It’s like someone who disagrees with atomic theory pointing out that there is always room for doubt in science, and that something else might be going on that we might be mistaking for atoms. As you say, so what? Atomic theory is the only testable and falsifiable theory we have that is consistent with the facts. Pointing out these things about the nature of science with respect to reality are patently obvious and don’t contribute to the conversation.
b baggins: MattF: Instantaneous creation, for example.
I haven’t heard of any Bible believers believing such a thing. The Bible describes a process that is taken by God over a particular time period.
Let me be more clear. I am using “instantaneous creation” to describe the creation of biological diversity through the relatively sudden creation of many different species from scratch. Once, for example, there were no whales, then, rather suddenly, there were — not because some population of another species became whales as a process involving gradual change, but because they were rather suddenly and supernaturally made to exist.
I do not mean to suggest that everything was popped into existence, fully formed, in one single instant. I know creationists do not hold to that idea.
b baggins: How He achieves so much in apparently so little time is not fully described, though its God we’re talking about… The “laws of physics” as we know them depend on Him.
Yes. And I fully agree that He is capable of creating the way in which creationists describe. The forensic evidence at our disposal, however, shows rather unambiguously that He did not — or that if He did, He went to great lengths to make it appear exactly as if He did not.
b baggins: No wonder, you cannot offer up evidence that contradicts God creating the universe as described in the Bible.
It is not my intent to show that these facts contradict God creating the Universe as described in the Bible. It is my intent to show that these facts contradict God creating the Universe the way creationists believe the Bible describes it. Which they do.
b baggins: The facts can agree with a creationist position. No lies or mistakes needed.
I suppose, in some hypothetical Universe, they can. But in this Universe, they don’t. Please refer to the posts I mentioned.
b baggins: Doubting or being ignorant of the scientific explanation of gravity is not the same as doubting that when I jump off a building I will fall, is it?
No, of course not. One is doubting the overarching explanation for countless bits of observations, discoveries, and experiments; the other is doubting these facts themselves. But I fail to see your point; we have both when it comes to evolution.
b baggins: Then you’d be wrong. You can’t be dismissive with uncertainty.
Having known uncertainty with respect to evolution is not the same as being uncertain about whether or not certain objections to it hold any water. You’re conflating different kinds of uncertainty.
I am pretty sure that the Earth is round. However, I know that that assurance is based on particular facts, and what it kinds of facts it would take to logically undermine my knowledge; therefore, a known uncertainty exists. It is also the case that I know that particular “evidences” a handful of people give for “knowing” that the Earth is flat are silly.
Am I wrong to be dismissive of the Flat Earth Society’s claims, even though my understanding of the Earth’s roundness is not, strictly speaking, absolutely certain?
b baggins: People debate in this case because the truth is not easily discerned or provable one way or the other. Neither side is known to be untrue, so respective adherents surely aren’t lying.
If people had no vested interest in maintaining their position, but only in attempting to discern the truth, it might be that simple. (It’s telling, for example, that there have been no creationist attempts to even address the evidence that contraindicates their position. By contrast, I’ve done my level best to address objections whenever they come my way.)
The fact of the matter is that people are told that they cannot really be consistent with Scripture unless they understand Genesis in the way that they are taught. They have strong incentive to maintain a creationist position even when it requires denial of simple, directly-observed fact that shows their position to be wrong.
Again, by contrast, evolution has changed as new information has come to light, even though the basic ideas have remained relatively intact; there is a strong incentive to be consistent with reality, since failure to do so will not get you taken seriously in the scientific community.
When creationist proponents continue to make claims that are shown to be false through direct observation, they are lying. (It would be one thing to claim that they don’t know how all the facts fit. But consider, for example, Duane Gish’s maintenance that there is no trace of Triceratops’ ancestry, when he’s been shown time and again, to his face, a line that is exactly this evidence.) When they make stuff up to try to prove evolution false, they are lying. (Consider the steps Ken Ham says that a scale must go through to become a feather — a series of steps no “evolutionist” has ever advanced, and a series which is contradicted by directly-observed fact.) When they change history to ennoble creationism or denigrate evolution, they are lying. (Note what Expelled has to say about evolution with respect to Nazi Germany.) When they make up things that evolutionists believe that they don’t, they are lying. When they say that “real science” agrees with their position, in spite of what they have been shown we directly observe, they are lying. (Again, look at those posts I referenced.)
Not all who advocate creationism are lying. Some simply lack knowledge. But there are also those who are just making stuff up and willfully ignoring facts, and they are the ones I mean to call to task.
b baggins: Who knows what is naturally realizable? Scientists can’t even explain what is current, much less the potential of life in the future.
There are things we can state with a reasonable degree of confidence, however, since we have come to understand principles governing heredity, genetic relationship, and how new traits evolve in a population.
While you could argue that we might see stuff fall “sideways” in the future because we can’t possibly understand everything about gravity, we have a reasonable degree of confidence that they won’t. It’s much the same thing.
Kash: “Ok, here is my response. I think you are wrong”
I don’t think so. You see no difference between the honest money that is gold and silver while supporting the Fiat system prefered by Communist and Fascists alike. You believe the state does much to help the poor, while all the evidence is to the contrary. After trillions of dollars spent in the war on poverty, it is a war we have lost. Yet you continue to support government programs. You even thought that Cash for Clunkers was a great government program to stimulate the economy. I’ve stated ad infinitum that the banks now run the country. Then Frontline airs a broadcast that proves my point, and your response is, “we just need to get honest people in government.” Yet, here we are and the Who is Who of government are, Geitner, Summers, and Helicopter Ben who once said the Fed was prepared to print money without end. In the past 2 years financial institutions have received hundreds of billions soon to exceed trillions in bailout. The Too Big to Fail are getting bigger as the small banks shut their doors and are taken over by the big boys. How come the small banks did not get bailout?
And now we hear of 70 billion in bonuses to the very thieves that created this disaster and you seem to think that the system is not broken. You continue to support government action to relieve economic pain, which is the Keynesian theory. I will admit that it works for a while but in the end government over reaches and expands eventually bringing the system down. Such is the history of every fiat currency ever tried. But somehow you believe this time will be different.
Besides my response to you was based on your criticism of Christianity. To be sure there is much to criticise, but you refuse to see what God has proclaimed to be “honest” and have thus accepted the “LIE” that is the US dollar…..a currency that is being created at will to the benefit of the money changers. You know the group….Jesus had to drive them from the temple with a whip. Notice He did not try to reason with them as He did the Pharisees.
You argued every point Doug made when he appeared on Stu’s program at the beginning of the year. You are a Devout Statist….everything you say and support on the economic front points that very fact. Why not just be honest and admit it. But as Jesus says, one should not criticize until one has first examined him/her-self.
“And now we hear of 70 billion in bonuses to the very thieves that created this disaster and you seem to think that the system is not broken.” You constantly over simplify my position, but then, nuance does not seem to be part of your makeup. Of course I think the system is broken, and I keep saying so. I just don’t accept your (in my opinion over-simplified) reason for all that is wrong with the US economic situation and thus your solution. You see everything so black and white, and I am never going to agree with you that it is simply a matter of ending the fed and going back to gold specie, while you can’t seem to discuss any subject without coming back to that.
“You know the group….Jesus had to drive them from the temple with a whip. Notice He did not try to reason with them as He did the Pharisees.” Seriously, you think that was what Jesus was upset about? That they were using fiat money in the form of temple coinage? THAT is all you get from that scene?
“After trillions of dollars spent in the war on poverty, it is a war we have lost.” You keep repeating that statement, even though I have repeatedly debunked it. The number is highly inflated. Besides, we enjoy one of the best living standards in the world and have very few people starving to death…of course, those who have better living standards than the US are Socialist countries.. so tell me again how you think the war on poverty in the US has failed?
“You are a Devout Statist….everything you say and support on the economic front points that very fact. Why not just be honest and admit it. But as Jesus says, one should not criticize until one has first examined him/her-self.” Wow, what obvious hypocrisy and unpleasantness. What obvious attempt to anger and offend..
I am not a statist by any definition, because I put Christ before nationalism…over and over again on this site I have argued that the US by definition can not be a Christian nation because to be a Christian is to value humanity over national interests. That means American citizens AND citizens of other lands. You always return to name-calling. The sign of a weak argument.
MattF: While you could argue that we might see stuff fall “sideways” in the future because we can’t possibly understand everything about gravity, we have a reasonable degree of confidence that they won’t. It’s much the same thing.
Whew, thanks for the response. No further objections at this time.
kash: “You see everything so black and white, and I am never going to agree with you that it is simply a matter of ending the fed and going back to gold specie, while you can’t seem to discuss any subject without coming back to that.”
This subject will impact every aspect of our lives. The fiat monetary system, with all of evil…and it is pure evil, is bringing the nation down. The net effect will be increased homelessness, ghost malls, ghost communities, civil unrest, rising crime, closed churches, ministries that depend on donations shut down, and the middle class reduced in size if not completely gone.
I already know of one family that has broken up due to the financial stress placed on them by the current economy. Sorry if it makes me angry knowing that it was government and the banksters that created this situation. These people, in their infinite greed and desire for power, caused incredible pain for a young couple with children. If the Frontline program does not bring up a fountain of righteous anger, then nothing will.
Kash: “The number is highly inflated. Besides, we enjoy one of the best living standards in the world and have very few people starving to death…of course, those who have better living standards than the US are Socialist countries.. so tell me again how you think the war on poverty in the US has failed?”
How can we enjoy one of the best standards of living and have others with better living standards. If Socialist countries are so much better why on earth stay here? The very fact that you believe Socialism is better than capitalism points to the fact that you are a STATIST.
I doubt you will accept this paper written in 1999 on poverty but here are some parts of it:
“The present massive level of spending on welfare for the poor started with the President Johnson in 1964 when he declared his “War on Poverty”. Since that time there has been an estimated $7 trillion spent on this “war” with no noticeable impact on the poverty rate, as reported by the Census Bureau………….The most comprehensive paper on the history of the welfare program is an essay, one of many, by Robert Rector, probably the most well known expert on welfare and poverty. The essay is online and is called “Welfare, Expanding the Reform” and can be read directly or downloaded as a PDF file. This paper is a must read for it describes in well documented detail what a tragic program this has been — the massive expenditures, the lack of any progress, and the destruction of millions of lives. I give you one very telling quote: “.. the $6.98 trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the United States”.
http://perspicuity.net/civics/poverty.html
If our war on poverty has been so successful then why have cost continued to go UP. Surely if we were winning the war, it should have already been won, costs would be declining.
kash: “I am not a statist by any definition, because I put Christ before nationalism…over and over again on this site I have argued that the US by definition can not be a Christian nation because to be a Christian is to value humanity over national interests.”
Statism and nationalism have absolutely nothing in common and you know it. Go back to the definition of statist then look up the definition of nationalism. America is a Christian nation, in that it was established on Judao-Christian principles. That is fact and I argued that with Bernie. You continue to distort and twist facts to fit your own position. You said / suggested that Socialism as the best system and while NOT all statists are socialist (some are Fascists) all Socialists are Statists. Now I understand why you support Fiat money, it is how the state grows in power while enslaving the people.
“You said / suggested that Socialism as the best system” when? where? I consistently argue for regulated capitalism. Just because you find that by misrepresenting my position it is easier for you to criticize me doesn’t make it right. And I don’t care what you THINK a statist is, or what you THINK a nationalist is, or what you THINK America is. I believe that if we are not working FOR the kindgom of God, we are working against it. And the Kingdom of God is not capitalist, or socialist, or any other economic system. It is not democratic, or fascist, or any other political system. The Kingdom of God is where people take care of each other, however they can best do that. In my opinion, social welfare programs help take care of people. So do churches. Both should be supported.
“How can we enjoy one of the best standards of living and have others with better living standards. If Socialist countries are so much better why on earth stay here? The very fact that you believe Socialism is better than capitalism points to the fact that you are a STATIST.” I never said that socialism is better than capitalism. I pointed out the FACT that of the ten countries in the world with the highest standard of living, most are, to varying degrees, socialist. Since when is praising something good the same thing as saying its the only way to do it? You are becoming increasingly dishonest in your arguments.
“If our war on poverty has been so successful then why have cost continued to go UP. Surely if we were winning the war, it should have already been won, costs would be declining.” Well THAT is a logical fallacy. Winning the war means fewer percent of the population people living in abject poverty. To some extent that is always going to require some sort of wealth distribution, because no economy can provide decent paying jobs for every single citizen, and not every citizen is always going to be able to work. As the population grows, costs of social welfare are going to go up…. but so will the tax base.
Mike: “Statism and nationalism have absolutely nothing in common and you know it. Go back to the definition of statist then look up the definition of nationalism.” Did you or did you not reference wikipedia? Read the whole first two paragraphs, Mike, and see where it discusses the fascist concept of statism which is “synonomous with the concept of nation”. Do you or do you not also keep calling me a fascist? This is what happens when you engage in vitriolic hyperbole. You undermine your own argument because you accuse the other side of positions they in no way support.
From the very article you sent me to:
“In the 1920s, over half of the families would have been officially “poor” by today’s standard (adjusted for inflation).
The average “poor” American lives in a bigger house or apartment, eats far more meat, owns more appliances, has more amenities such as indoor toilets, than the average European (note that “average” includes all, not just the poor).
Today’s poor are more likely to own common appliances such as televisions and refrigerators than the average family in the 1950s.
Government reports show that the poor actually spend 2 to 3 times as much as their official income. Amazing!
As a group, the “poor” are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.”
Gee, to me that sounds like we have done well as a nation…poor people aren’t dying of hunger, and are able to afford some of the luxuries of life. Nevermind the complex reasons why it is cheaper for poor people to eat fattening corn sugar laden foods than healthy diets, never mind that the increase in obesity is not just a facet of the poorer populations but is a nationwide trend. What is it that you people want? The poor to be living in the streets starving to death and not allowed to watch television? You know full well that the many of the “working poor” have bought into our consumer driven economy and fund their lives on credit, because politicians keep telling them that accumulating stuff is how they reach the American dream. But I still don’t think that the fact that the poor are better off than they were in the 1920s means the war on poverty has failed….it seems to me that it has been a success and now we just need to figure out how to re-evaluate what we mean by a high standard of living. (HInt: it should not be connected to the size of your house, bank account, or car).
Kash: In my opinion, social welfare programs help take care of people. So do churches. Both should be supported.
Well put.
It would be amusing, if it weren’t so sad and dangerous, how black-and-white these issues are to some people. You believe in laissez-faire capitalism, or you’re a dirty socialist who wants big government to take care of everybody. You accept commodity-based currency, or you promote the governmental abuse of economics to its own benefit. You accept creationism, or you’re a dirty atheistic evolutionist who has no moral compass to prevent him from eating babies.
Complex questions rarely have simple answers. While reading and watching videos that Mike has supplied have taught me about the importance of investing in many different areas — including commodities — his obdurate approach to understanding society and Scripture seems like it’s missing a lot. Maybe, just maybe, he is accurately sensing impending doom — but if so, the way he’s explained and/or defended the idea seem based on a rather slim and simplistic interpretation of things.
Mike: How can we enjoy one of the best standards of living and have others with better living standards.
Sorry, Mike, but that’s basic logic. I was suspicious when you listed the space program in there along with the Viet Nam conflict and other government expenditures as large; this little nugget only seems to reinforce serious doubts I have about your ability to understand facts in context. You did nothing to address Kash’s observation other than attempt to affix a label to him in an attempt to exaggerate his position and his claims.
If you want to convince people, Mike, and not just try to scare them, you need to show how you understand facts that seem contrary to your position.
“America is a Christian nation, in that it was established on Judao-Christian principles.” America is a nation that was founded by a diverse group of intellectuals of varying degrees and denominations of Christianity. The constitution was based on the fundamental right of all people to have equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in theory, at any rate, since blacks were excluded at that time). This idea came from Enlightenment principles influenced by the Reformation, the re-discovery of Greek classical thought, and scientific discoveries that brought about sophisticated ideas of “Natural Law”. To say that America was based solely on Judaeo-Christian principles (whatever is meant by THAT ambiguos phrase) is simply inconsistent with the known historical facts.
MattF, thanks for your support. I’m a she, by the way. And I agree that Mike has taken what is essentially an approach to investing and monetary policy and made it in his own head into a Biblical Mandate. Smacks of idolatry, in my opinion.
Kash: ” The Kingdom of God is where people take care of each other, however they can best do that. In my opinion, social welfare programs help take care of people. ”
Where do you find in the Bible that people are obligated to take care of each other. It is a know fact that the social welfare state does more harm than good. Even during the best of times, I’ve known people that were fully capable of working, chosing not to do so and living off the welfare state. As a landlord, I have seen this up close and personal. My mother and brother-in-law have both rented to people receiving government assistance (Sec. 8 housing)and EVERY case has been a rotten experience. The last person my brother-in-law rented to failed to pay their share and when they moved he hauled off 15 truck loads of garbage to the dump. Among the garbage were several bicycles, a couple of TV sets, rotted food in the refrigerator, and numerous clothing items. One has to wonder where these people got this stuff. Surely they did not work for the money to buy them. I would bet a nickel to a dollar that they got quite a bit of it free from organization interested in helping the poor.
I have served on the committee at my church that helps people that are in financial distress. There are certain individuals that make the rounds to the different churches but when they have been presented the opportunity to work, they are not to be found. All they want is the handout.
Then of course there is the fraud and abuse of the system. Did you happen to catch the 60 Minutes program on medicare abuse. I think you will find it interesting. It is on the web.
I have no doubt that welfare programs have helped some people, but by and large the impact has been horrific, especially on minority families.
The US spends more money on education than any of the industrialized nations and yet we keep falling further and further behind. Go to any of the big cities, where poverty = violent crime, and you find schools with graduation rates less than 50%. My sister taught school in Miami for 35 years, and can attest to decline in ambition of the students she taught. I recall a conversation I had with her where a student actually told my sister something to the effect, “Why should I study. I can get welfare, live for nothing, and deal drugs; making more money in one week than you make in a month.”
Both of her children were educated in Private schools. Most teachers she knows (I have 4 family members that are teachers) all send / sent their children to private schools.
My younger sister retired from Metro Dade Police Department after 30 years as an officer. She worked numerous divisions, from Airport to Undercover narcotics, to Domestic violence, to DARE officer, to the Abused children’s division. Her first beat was Overtown, the inner city mostly minority neighborhood, where she was first shot at during the riots of 1980. She can attest through personal experience to great harm done by the social welfare state. Many of the welfare queens’ (those that had multiple children to receive government checks) children got in on the drug trade early on. They served as lookouts for cops and would warn the street dealers of any police officers in the neighborhood. Many if not most of the drug busts she and members of her department made were on individuals who were also receiving government aid. The government aid provided the minimum standard of living while dealing drugs supplied their habits.
My mother knows of man that tried to swimm from mainland Cuba to Guantanamo seeking political aslyam. He lost both his legs when a mine went off (the Cuban government as mined the channel between the mainland and the Naval base). He was captured and spent 4 more years in the Socialist Island paradise of Fidel Castro.
A benefactor in the US managed to get the man out of Cuba, where he took a job as a book keeper. Later he went on to get a degree in accounting and is currently a successful accountant. This man overcame numerous obsticles and yet within a few years made it to the top of the middle class. He received no government assistence as he vowed that all he needed was freedom to make it. He spent 5 months applying for scholarships, and saved as much as he could from his bookkeeping job. This is how people get out of poverty, not by living off the government dole.
But all this does not matter. You believe what you want to believe whether or not it is true or based on facts. ONE FACT that is indisputable, is the FACT THAT NO FIAT CURRENCY HAS EVER SURVIVED…..NONE. All have ended in misery and poverty for the people. Yet you believe that the fiat dollar is somehow beneficial to the nation. You are a Useful Idiot.
Mike: “The US spends more money on education than any of the industrialized nations and yet we keep falling further and further behind.” Misleading. While the U.S. spent the most in absolute dollars, it ranks about tenth in education spending as a percent of GDP at 4.8 percent.
MattF: “It would be amusing, if it weren’t so sad and dangerous, how black-and-white these issues are to some people. You believe in laissez-faire capitalism, or you’re a dirty socialist who wants big government to take care of everybody. ”
That is an outright lie and you know it. What does the Bible say of who is the father of lies? I have stated that government’s role in business and economics should be limited to what government does well and that is provide for laws that punishes fraud and abuse, and levels the playing field for all competitors. That is not laissez-faire capitalism, it is Free Market Capitalism, where the people…the invisible hand, decides who succeeds and who doesn’t. Notice how the big financial institutions were bailed out, while the small / regional ones go under. Capital is being concentrated in ways no one can imagine. Stop being a useful idiot that supports a system that will impoverish and enslave the vast majority of people in America. Do you believe the PBS Frontline program, The Warning? Did you even watch it? Kash did and her response was that all we need is honest people running the Fed and Treasury. That is like saying all the Mafia needs is good Bible believing Christians and it too will be a benefit to society. Give me a break and please as a Christian you should know that it is a sin to “Bear false witness against your neighbor.” I know you did not directly accuse me of being a LF capitalist, but the implication was clear as I am the only one challenging you and kash.
You keep citing the so called “welfare culture” as a reason against any welfare at all, even though the numbers show that is a very small part of welfare. For every one instance of someone abusing the system, there are one hundered families using it the way it is intended – temporary help until the get back on their feet. You want to take it away from the 100 just because 1 is abusing it? Yeah, that’s Biblical.
MattF didn’t accuse you of anything other than seeing the world in black and white. Do you deny that?
“He received no government assistence as he vowed that all he needed was freedom to make it. He spent 5 months applying for scholarships, and saved as much as he could from his bookkeeping job. This is how people get out of poverty, not by living off the government dole.” Great story. It still would have been great if he had temporarily accepted food stamps, or WIC if he had had kids. Most people who use welfare us it that way – to provide for their families basic needs while they are improving their situation in life.
“ONE FACT that is indisputable, is the FACT THAT NO FIAT CURRENCY HAS EVER SURVIVED…..NONE.” Umm, no economy based on gold has ever survived either. It is the nature of civilizations and their economies to come and go.
Kash: ““ONE FACT that is indisputable, is the FACT THAT NO FIAT CURRENCY HAS EVER SURVIVED…..NONE.” Umm, no economy based on gold has ever survived either. It is the nature of civilizations and their economies to come and go.”
Do you really believe people are so stupid so as not to see the ridiculous argument you are making. You are comparing a currency to an economy, which is made up of a nation. You not only comparing apples and oranges you have taken it to the outer limits of comparing Apples to Planets.
Kash: “MattF didn’t accuse you of anything other than seeing the world in black and white. Do you deny that?
” The Frontline program was pretty black and white. It was also pretty good on showing pure evil….evil that continues to flourish and destroy this economy. An evil you support.
“You are comparing a currency to an economy, which is made up of a nation.” Umm, no. You are claiming that since gold still exists more or less in its original form wheras currency changes form, an economy based on gold is inherently more stable. I don’t agree. Economies based on gold are no more inherently stable than currency and there is just as much potential for the wealth to become too centralized in the hands of too few.
“evil that continues to flourish and destroy this economy.” Yes. Its called GREED.
Kash: I’m a she, by the way.
My deepest apologies. I’m sorry I hadn’t learned that yet.
Kash: And I agree that Mike has taken what is essentially an approach to investing and monetary policy and made it in his own head into a Biblical Mandate. Smacks of idolatry, in my opinion.
Interesting — this has implications in other areas of Biblical interpretation. Let me cogitate on that one for a bit.
Mike: I know you did not directly accuse me of being a LF capitalist, but the implication was clear as I am the only one challenging you and kash.
Only if you also think, by implication, that I clearly implied that I am a baby-eating atheistic evolutionist because I disbelieve creationism.
I was trying to show the extremity of black-and-white thinking. Would you have been happier if my example had been, “You believe in free-market capitalism, or you’re a dirty socialist who wants big government to take care of everybody”? The extremist danger I was trying to point out is still there.
MattF: Only if you also think, by implication,
Sorry. By extension. Sheesh.
MattF and Kash, I’m literally done with you on this issue. Both of you are hopeless statists. I am sure that when the hyperinflation hits (hopefully delayed a year or so as it takes time for the newly created money to find its way into the system) you will blame big business greed. You will call for more government intervention, probably support price controls which never work (ask those that lived under Nixon’s W&P controls) and bring on shortages. Inflation will push people into higher tax brackets and thus consume more of their depreciating dollars making life even more difficult. Those that seek refuge from a confiscatory government will find that any attempts to leave will be met with wealth confiscation in much the same manner Communist dictatorships make it difficult to get one’s wealth out of the country. The elderly will suffer the most while the young ambitious citizens find life intollerable with fewer job opportunities and skyrocketing costs. The best and brightest will leave just as they have left other countries that punished hard work and industry while rewarding slovenly behavior or the criminals within the system.
A state is in decline when the criminals are within the system threatening the citizens of the nation. That is what the Frontline program was all about. OTC derivatives have INCREASED BY 100% SINCE 2006. They now stand at $1.250 quadrillion or $1250 trillion. Naked short selling (basically counterfeiting stock shares) is still in full effect and the SEC cannot even re-institute the Up tick rule which was in effect from 1932 to 2004 and worked quite well to prevent Market Plungers from manipulating company shares. These theives destroy companies killing jobs while they make off with obscene profits and pay no taxes on their ill gotten gains.
Bernie Madoff was KNOWN to be a fraud at least a decade before his Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. The SEC knew it but Bernie was one of the good ole boys having served as Chairman of the Board of Directors and on the Board of Governors of the NASD.
We have had numerous Congressman, Senators, and even the previous NY Fed chairman now Sec. of Trea. as Tax Cheats who received special treatment that no ordinary citizen would even have a prayer of receiving. It boggles my Christian mind that any Christian can support such a system, but I understand the thought process. I have 3 distant relatives in Cuba that still believe in Castro’s communist utopia. We still help them out, (without the family’s help in the US, they would be in terrible shape) because they are family. Statism is a religion for those that embrace it. It sounds great as the average run of the mill statist believes in the goodness of man. What surprises me is that there are Christians that seem to have the same opinion…if only we get some good people in all will be well. The problem with that is that all too often the greedy and power hungry are the ones that gain control so the only hope is to limit their power.
Remember what Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” What do you think Mayer meant? It doesn’t matter, your religion is Statism and you are both devout Statists. Like I said, I’m done. The next 2 to 3 years will prove my points. I will continue to pray that a leader will emerge that leads this nation back to limited government and individual responsiblity. A government that insures fair play and fair markets and whose economy is based on honest money.
Mike: MattF and Kash, I’m literally done with you on this issue.
What would it mean if you were figuratively done with us on this issue?
Sorry. Just being a punk.
MattF: “What would it mean if you were figuratively done with us on this issue?” I guess it would mean I wasn’t really done, just partially done in which case I would be undone
Being honest with you and Kash, my passion is due to the heart break I am witnessing in my community and in my church. A heart break as businesses go under (several in my congregation) and ministries begin to struggle due to lack of funding. People cannot give what they do not have. All this thanks to a greedy bunch of banksters and financiers that made themselves fabulously wealthy while not caring that they would destroy the very economy of their nation. These people have no heart and the politicians that suck on the mothers milk of the contributions from these scoundrels makes me sick. Both Republicans and Democrats are at fault. Both liberals and conservative elites of the Republican party decided to make a deal with the devil and sell out the country.
This is what causes the outrage within me. You don’t have to be a Christian to be infuriated by what has taken place in America the past 2 generations. These people do not care who they destroy…who they kill. Vietnam was not a war we just fell into, it was a war devised to make a small group of corporations (banks at the center) extremely wealthy. How many people died because of the greed of few men in power. How many have died in this decade alone. When Nixon closed the gold window on Aug. 14, 1971, he threw open the doors to seat of government to the banking institutions and the corporations that surround them. The system has supported butchering regimes in different parts of the world while instituting a level of corruption in the US that dwarfs any Banana Republic.
Those that do not see this are either blind or just refuse to believe that our government could behave in such a way. I keep reminding people that Hitler came to power in a democratic republic in the most civilized country in the world. In 1932 no one in Germany could imagine what would take place over the next 13 years.
Those that think “it cannot happen here” in that no catastrophe can befall there great nation just does not understand what history has taught us. I weep for my nation, just as the prophets wept for Israel. BTW, I am not claiming to be a prophet. I just believe what the Bible says God finds abominable and then go about crunching the numbers that tell me we are headed for a series of major storms. Storms created by our very government.
Mike, I would take your “concern” more seriously if you weren’t so quick to demean and abuse anyone who disagrees with you.
Mike: Give me a break and please as a Christian you should know that it is a sin to “Bear false witness against your neighbor.”
So you’re going to stop calling Kash and me statists and insisting that we think that the government will cure it all? Log in your own eye, there, old man.
Mike: Both Republicans and Democrats are at fault.
On this, we agree. There’s a tendency in this country to see the political parties as opposites. In reality — especially if you compare our politics to those of other countries — they’re more similar than they are different. We don’t have a conservative party and a liberal party; we have two business parties. Governments, including our own, will be corrupt whether they switch to a gold standard or not. But God is capable of administrating the changes He wants in a government, again, whether they conform to a gold standard or not. The way I see it, if God desires to remove corruption in our government, praying for our leaders will do a lot more to protect those they rule than changing the basis of our currency. If God is going to judge this country by driving many into poverty, changing the basis of our currency is not going to change His plans one iota. Maybe I’m too much of a fatalist for my own good, but I tend to think that we should be caring for the poor however we can regardless of the security of the dollar, and that ultimately, making sure people receive good teaching, know how to discern truth from error, and that no confusion stands in the way of our witness to the lost makes a lot more difference than the precious metal that is (or is not) backing the paper in my wallet.
“All this thanks to a greedy bunch of banksters and financiers that made themselves fabulously wealthy while not caring that they would destroy the very economy of their nation.” I absolutely agree that this is what happened. And this will always happen under unregulated capitalism. Corporations made record profits while wages stayed static from 1970s until now. Where did all that profit go? To CEOs and investors rather than the workers. How do you ensure that the workers get a share in the profits? Regulation, regulation, regulation….or socialism, but we all know the downside to THAT solution and it’s one we want to avoid in this country.
#53-55: Very interesting……..one might think these riddles were from the same person!!! (Chuckle).