Does Fundamentalism impede learning?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does Fundamentalism impede learning?

When I taught college / university geology and Earth science courses, many Fundamentalist Christian students refused to even consider information that conflicted with what their bible or their preacher said. The Earth “was created by god� relatively recently (perhaps 4004 BCE as per Archbishop Ussher’s calculations from genealogy), fossils were “put in rocks by the devil to confuse man�, there was a worldwide flood (in spite of the need for one billion cubic miles of water beyond the Earth’s supply, and in spite of no evidence to indicate that the story is true), etc.

Those students often regurgitated answers on tests to earn a grade, but steadfastly maintained their original ideas (apparently – though they may have changed since, particularly if they pursued the study of sciences).

In these debates we observe Literalists insisting that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that people can live inside fish, that a lunch bucket lunch can be “blessed� and serve multitudes, that people walk on water, that water magically turns into water, that seas part and storms calm on command, and that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave – all at least “once upon a time in a land far away�.

We know that religion has persecuted those who seek truthful answers to questions about nature – example Galileo and Socrates – and present anti-education / anti-science / anti-intellectual bent of many fundamentalist religious “leaders� (and their followers).

Question for debate:

Does Fundamentalism impede about nature and the real world we inhabit if the information conflicts with religious "teachings"?

[Flail]

.
Does Fundamentalism impede learning?

When I taught college / university geology and Earth science courses, many Fundamentalist Christian students refused to even consider information that conflicted with what their bible or their preacher said. The Earth “was created by god� relatively recently (perhaps 4004 BCE as per Archbishop Ussher’s calculations from genealogy), fossils were “put in rocks by the devil to confuse man�, there was a worldwide flood (in spite of the need for one billion cubic miles of water beyond the Earth’s supply, and in spite of no evidence to indicate that the story is true), etc.

Those students often regurgitated answers on tests to earn a grade, but steadfastly maintained their original ideas (apparently – though they may have changed since, particularly if they pursued the study of sciences).

In these debates we observe Literalists insisting that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that people can live inside fish, that a lunch bucket lunch can be “blessed� and serve multitudes, that people walk on water, that water magically turns into water, that seas part and storms calm on command, and that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave – all at least “once upon a time in a land far away�.

We know that religion has persecuted those who seek truthful answers to questions about nature – example Galileo and Socrates – and present anti-education / anti-science / anti-intellectual bent of many fundamentalist religious “leaders� (and their followers).

Question for debate:

Does Fundamentalism impede about nature and the real world we inhabit if the information conflicts with religious "teachings"?

All superstions about the supernatural impede reason and learning. Science and philosophy could advance more quickly without religion.

[justifyothers]

.
Does Fundamentalism impede learning?

When I taught college / university geology and Earth science courses, many Fundamentalist Christian students refused to even consider information that conflicted with what their bible or their preacher said. The Earth “was created by god� relatively recently (perhaps 4004 BCE as per Archbishop Ussher’s calculations from genealogy), fossils were “put in rocks by the devil to confuse man�, there was a worldwide flood (in spite of the need for one billion cubic miles of water beyond the Earth’s supply, and in spite of no evidence to indicate that the story is true), etc.

Those students often regurgitated answers on tests to earn a grade, but steadfastly maintained their original ideas (apparently – though they may have changed since, particularly if they pursued the study of sciences).

In these debates we observe Literalists insisting that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that people can live inside fish, that a lunch bucket lunch can be “blessed� and serve multitudes, that people walk on water, that water magically turns into water, that seas part and storms calm on command, and that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave – all at least “once upon a time in a land far away�.

We know that religion has persecuted those who seek truthful answers to questions about nature – example Galileo and Socrates – and present anti-education / anti-science / anti-intellectual bent of many fundamentalist religious “leaders� (and their followers).

Question for debate:

Does Fundamentalism impede about nature and the real world we inhabit if the information conflicts with religious "teachings"?

Sadly, I think it does. I wish that bible believers could understand that science can be true, and so can much in the bible, if we just open our minds to reality. It is my opinion that God does not want us to be closed off to new ideas. It is clearly NOT the nature of man or the way God designed us.

We evolve, we grow by learning new things and allowing discovery.

If they are true, I think some of the things recorded in Genesis about creation were the ideas of people 6000 years ago. Mankind & the world were different then. There is absolutely no rational reason to argue that God intended evolution as His way to develop man (eventual man). Yet, to reveal this to a desert nomad, fightng over water holes, seems a little premature.

Perhaps God reveals truths to mankind as he is able to understand and use them. Science is a beautiful thing, as is spirituality. They both have their place and can co-habitate quite nicely, if allowed.

This comment does not apply to all, but I often wonder how fundamentalists justify their denial of science, when without it, the wars that they support would not be an option. The medicine they use for their children would not exist, and seeing the wonder of God's universe would not be possible.

[Zzyzx]

.

This comment does not apply to all, but I often wonder how fundamentalists justify their denial of science, when without it, the wars that they support would not be an option. The medicine they use for their children would not exist, and seeing the wonder of God's universe would not be possible.

Justifyothers,

You are a gem. Your absences or infrequencies create voids. Stay with us. What you say should be inspirational to spiritual people who search for answers -- they could do well by emulating you.

Thanks.

Z

[whirlwind]

Sadly, I think it does. I wish that bible believers could understand that science can be true, and so can much in the bible, if we just open our minds to reality. It is my opinion that God does not want us to be closed off to new ideas. It is clearly NOT the nature of man or the way God designed us.

We evolve, we grow by learning new things and allowing discovery.

If they are true, I think some of the things recorded in Genesis about creation were the ideas of people 6000 years ago. Mankind & the world were different then. There is absolutely no rational reason to argue that God intended evolution as His way to develop man (eventual man). Yet, to reveal this to a desert nomad, fightng over water holes, seems a little premature.

Perhaps God reveals truths to mankind as he is able to understand and use them. Science is a beautiful thing, as is spirituality. They both have their place and can co-habitate quite nicely, if allowed.

This comment does not apply to all, but I often wonder how fundamentalists justify their denial of science, when without it, the wars that they support would not be an option. The medicine they use for their children would not exist, and seeing the wonder of God's universe would not be possible.

Not all deny science. The earth is ancient and it is written as such. The earth was flooded world-wide as the records show and it is written as such. The various races didn't spring from one man and it is written as such. Did man evolve from apes? No!

The events in Genesis happened and when read as being the word of the LORD, which it is, and seeing/understanding the Words as the Spirit reveals meaning....the two go together quite well...usually. Where they part I either don't yet understand or science is mistaken.

[sickles]

Sadly, I think it does. I wish that bible believers could understand that science can be true, and so can much in the bible, if we just open our minds to reality. It is my opinion that God does not want us to be closed off to new ideas. It is clearly NOT the nature of man or the way God designed us.

We evolve, we grow by learning new things and allowing discovery.

If they are true, I think some of the things recorded in Genesis about creation were the ideas of people 6000 years ago. Mankind & the world were different then. There is absolutely no rational reason to argue that God intended evolution as His way to develop man (eventual man). Yet, to reveal this to a desert nomad, fightng over water holes, seems a little premature.

Perhaps God reveals truths to mankind as he is able to understand and use them. Science is a beautiful thing, as is spirituality. They both have their place and can co-habitate quite nicely, if allowed.

This comment does not apply to all, but I often wonder how fundamentalists justify their denial of science, when without it, the wars that they support would not be an option. The medicine they use for their children would not exist, and seeing the wonder of God's universe would not be possible.

Not all deny science. The earth is ancient and it is written as such. The earth was flooded world-wide as the records show and it is written as such. The various races didn't spring from one man and it is written as such. Did man evolve from apes? No!

The events in Genesis happened and when read as being the word of the LORD, which it is, and seeing/understanding the Words as the Spirit reveals meaning....the two go together quite well...usually. Where they part I either don't yet understand or science is mistaken.

The earth is much more ancient than is written in the bible. The records do not show a world wide flood. They do show a world wide deposit in the strata at around the same time, however these are thought to be from a meteor or from a massive volcanic event. The various races are pure humans (descended from mitochondrial eve, one woman) mixed with neanderthal tribes that were adapted to thier environment ahead of the humans. There is science to this effect. That is how we get asians (pure humans mixed with asian neanderthals) whites, (pure humans mixed with european neanderthals, and native americans (asian mixes mixed further with neanderthal.). Following this reasoning, southern africans are the purest of the human bloodlines ;o).

The events of genesis cannot be proven to have happened, as the man who wrote the texts down wasnt even there himself. I notice that book wasnt penned by Adam or Eve.

You seem to understand the bible somewhat, so i suspect it is your knowledge of science that is lacking.

Regards.

[Zzyzx]

.

The earth was flooded world-wide as the records show and it is written as such.

What "records" show that the Earth was flooded "to the tops of mountains" as "written"?

As a person who has studied geology extensively and taught the subject at college / university level, I have encountered absolutely NO evidence of such flooding -- and have calculated that if the tale was true, ONE BILLION cubic miles of water would have had to been added to the Earth's supply in "forty days" and then to have disappeared afterward (totally out of the Earth's hydrologic system).

[whirlwind]

Sadly, I think it does. I wish that bible believers could understand that science can be true, and so can much in the bible, if we just open our minds to reality. It is my opinion that God does not want us to be closed off to new ideas. It is clearly NOT the nature of man or the way God designed us.

We evolve, we grow by learning new things and allowing discovery.

If they are true, I think some of the things recorded in Genesis about creation were the ideas of people 6000 years ago. Mankind & the world were different then. There is absolutely no rational reason to argue that God intended evolution as His way to develop man (eventual man). Yet, to reveal this to a desert nomad, fightng over water holes, seems a little premature.

Perhaps God reveals truths to mankind as he is able to understand and use them. Science is a beautiful thing, as is spirituality. They both have their place and can co-habitate quite nicely, if allowed.

This comment does not apply to all, but I often wonder how fundamentalists justify their denial of science, when without it, the wars that they support would not be an option. The medicine they use for their children would not exist, and seeing the wonder of God's universe would not be possible.

Not all deny science. The earth is ancient and it is written as such. The earth was flooded world-wide as the records show and it is written as such. The various races didn't spring from one man and it is written as such. Did man evolve from apes? No!

The events in Genesis happened and when read as being the word of the LORD, which it is, and seeing/understanding the Words as the Spirit reveals meaning....the two go together quite well...usually. Where they part I either don't yet understand or science is mistaken.

The earth is much more ancient than is written in the bible.

The age of the earth isn't written in the Bible. Some assume it is 6,000 years but they aren't reading correctly. We are told very little of the previous age but enough is written to know there was a previous age. The earth was created and then the earth "became" without form. How many millions or billions of years has it been in existence? I don't know but it is considerable.

The records do not show a world wide flood. They do show a world wide deposit in the strata at around the same time, however these are thought to be from a meteor or from a massive volcanic event.

I haven't studied geology so must rely on others. My understanding...or what I have heard through the years, that may or may not be true, is that there is evidence of a catastrophic flood and that was long before the time of Noah. An excerpt from one such article.......

Biblical-style flood tore Britain from France -

Scientists have found that Britain owes its island status to a catastrophic flood that swept away in less than 24 hours the hills that once joined the land mass to France.

The flood, which took place between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, instantly turned Britain from being a peninsula of continental Europe into a separate entity, changing forever the way it would develop.

The finding has emerged from an advanced sonar survey of the sea bed of the English Channel that revealed huge scour marks, deep bowls and piles of rock that could have been created only by a giant torrent of water. If confirmed, it will force an important revision of British prehistory.

It had been thought the Channel had formed by slow erosion combined with rises in sea level that took place over millions of years, rather than by a sudden, biblical-style catastrophe. "This could have been one of the most powerful flood events ever known on earth," said Chris Striger, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "It would have cut through the chalk hills joining Britain to Europe and created a Niagara-style waterfall 300 ft (91.5m) to 400 feet high." (snip) ~ The Australian, Jonathan Leake, 9/25/06

To me, that coincides with the Biblical account of when the earth "became without form" and "darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." [Gen.1:2] The earth, during the time of the dinosaurs, was up and running and then the katalbo, the overturning. That age ended.

The various races are pure humans (descended from mitochondrial eve, one woman) mixed with neanderthal tribes that were adapted to thier environment ahead of the humans. There is science to this effect. That is how we get asians (pure humans mixed with asian neanderthals) whites, (pure humans mixed with european neanderthals, and native americans (asian mixes mixed further with neanderthal.). Following this reasoning, southern africans are the purest of the human bloodlines ;o).

I disagree. Black doesn't become white or vice versa. God created the various races on the sixth day. All races, male and female in His image.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

After the seventh day of rest, and "His days are as a thousand years," He formed Adam. He created man. He formed Adam.

The events of genesis cannot be proven to have happened, as the man who wrote the texts down wasnt even there himself. I notice that book wasnt penned by Adam or Eve.

The man wasn't but the Creator was "there Himself."

You seem to understand the bible somewhat, so i suspect it is your knowledge of science that is lacking.

Regards.

I have no doubt of that.

[whirlwind]

.

The earth was flooded world-wide as the records show and it is written as such.

What "records" show that the Earth was flooded "to the tops of mountains" as "written"?

As a person who has studied geology extensively and taught the subject at college / university level, I have encountered absolutely NO evidence of such flooding -- and have calculated that if the tale was true, ONE BILLION cubic miles of water would have had to been added to the Earth's supply in "forty days" and then to have disappeared afterward (totally out of the Earth's hydrologic system).

I didn't say it was "flooded to the tops of mountains." Why did you put that in quotes? I did say as written but that is in reference to what is written in Genesis. This flood I'm speaking of wasn't the flood of Noah.

[Slopeshoulder]

Fundamentalists impede learning by axiomatically, by definition. It's a big part of why they exist historically.

When they aren't impeding learning, they are distorting truth and making a mockery of thought. Look no farther than this thread for evidence.

Much of the material in the bible about satan's lies was anticipating them: fallacies, sophistry, corrupted methods and agendas. All passing for learning and a very strange definition of knowledge (circular reasoning+emotional commitment).

Oddly enough, credible religion requires almost endless learning, not only in theology and exegesis but in all the social sciences, humanities, arts, and hard sciences. Buet here's the difference: in each case secular experts would recognize and respect the thoughts and participation of the non-fundamentalists (for example, Jesuit Ph.D's in all fields), while the fundamentalists never pass the straight face test outside their own little corner.

Sounds like we have a "yes" response incoming!!