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"?

[whirlwind]

.

That isn't completely true Scotracer. Many of us believe. Many of us know. Many never will. For some it's "not gonna happen." For some that think "it's not gonna happen," it will happen.

And, as the number of Ex-Christians indicate, some who "believe" and "know" now (perhaps fervently so) will come to realize that what they believed and "knew" was nothing more than the product of religious training or indoctrination or of imagination (theirs or others').

And how many more have come to love our Father despite false teachers, man's doctrine, man's religion? How many now SEE where they were blind? How many now LIVE where they were dead?

[ChaosBorders]

.

That isn't completely true Scotracer. Many of us believe. Many of us know. Many never will. For some it's "not gonna happen." For some that think "it's not gonna happen," it will happen.

And, as the number of Ex-Christians indicate, some who "believe" and "know" now (perhaps fervently so) will come to realize that what they believed and "knew" was nothing more than the product of religious training or indoctrination or of imagination (theirs or others').

And how many more have come to love our Father despite false teachers, man's doctrine, man's religion? How many now SEE where they were blind? How many now LIVE where they were dead?

Given Chrisitianity is on the decline, comparatively speaking, I'm not sure the word 'more' is quite accurate.

[JoeyKnothead]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It can be quite frustrating to see one continually using circular references, even more so when it's been explained why such references are faulty.

I know the feeling Joey....there are times I feel I should shower, "lather, rinse, repeat," after reading some of the words used in reference to God.

And whirlwind wins on the counter-punch.

My point though was how challenging theist claims is often met with more claims - from the book making the claims. You tells folks how such circular references are invalid, and then they go on using such. If certain religious beliefs prevent the incorporation of new and better thoughts and such, then those beliefs are an impediment to learning.

I would respectfully call out whirlwind here (noting this is purely my perspective), and feel these 'fori', and this thread specifically, support my notion. When challenged to support biblical claims, whirlwind will often present more biblical claims, as if the issuing of "compounding claims" somehow resolves or supports previous claims...

I challenge you to show the following:

1- There's a god (for thoroughness, I understand theists hate this challenge)
2- This god had a son
3- This son was Jesus
4- This son gave anything to anyone.

It is written....have ye not read?

The original claimant, upon challenge, offers up the "fact" that these claims have been written down somewhere. Written down. Heck, someone mighta hollered 'em up from a mountain on high.
Where does the claimant actually attempt to support the claims?

The impediment to learning is obvious when the claimant is unable to understand that faulty logic will likely produce faulty results.

A wolf and a pig go to the grocery. The wolf buys a goat and the pig buys a frog. The goat and the frog decide to have a barbecue, and they cook up the pig. The wolf dives in and says, "Dangitall, ham is great!".

Except for the universally, objectively held notion that ham is great, is it possible for me to support any of all that?

"Of course, because someone took the time to write it down!"

[whirlwind]

.

That isn't completely true Scotracer. Many of us believe. Many of us know. Many never will. For some it's "not gonna happen." For some that think "it's not gonna happen," it will happen.

And, as the number of Ex-Christians indicate, some who "believe" and "know" now (perhaps fervently so) will come to realize that what they believed and "knew" was nothing more than the product of religious training or indoctrination or of imagination (theirs or others').

And how many more have come to love our Father despite false teachers, man's doctrine, man's religion? How many now SEE where they were blind? How many now LIVE where they were dead?

Given Chrisitianity is on the decline, comparatively speaking, I'm not sure the word 'more' is quite accurate.

I don't know if it is on the decline....I truly have no idea. But, much of what goes on today in the "name of" religion is false. Many that love God have or shall fall into apostasy through deception.

[whirlwind]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It can be quite frustrating to see one continually using circular references, even more so when it's been explained why such references are faulty.

I know the feeling Joey....there are times I feel I should shower, "lather, rinse, repeat," after reading some of the words used in reference to God.

And whirlwind wins on the counter-punch.

My point though was how challenging theist claims is often met with more claims - from the book making the claims. You tells folks how such circular references are invalid, and then they go on using such. If certain religious beliefs prevent the incorporation of new and better thoughts and such, then those beliefs are an impediment to learning.

I would respectfully call out whirlwind here (noting this is purely my perspective), and feel these 'fori', and this thread specifically, support my notion. When challenged to support biblical claims, whirlwind will often present more biblical claims, as if the issuing of "compounding claims" somehow resolves or supports previous claims...

I challenge you to show the following:

1- There's a god (for thoroughness, I understand theists hate this challenge)
2- This god had a son
3- This son was Jesus
4- This son gave anything to anyone.

It is written....have ye not read?

The original claimant, upon challenge, offers up the "fact" that these claims have been written down somewhere. Written down. Heck, someone mighta hollered 'em up from a mountain on high.
Where does the claimant actually attempt to support the claims?

The impediment to learning is obvious when the claimant is unable to understand that faulty logic will likely produce faulty results.

A wolf and a pig go to the grocery. The wolf buys a goat and the pig buys a frog. The goat and the frog decide to have a barbecue, and they cook up the pig. The wolf dives in and says, "Dangitall, ham is great!".

Except for the universally, objectively held notion that ham is great, is it possible for me to support any of all that?

"Of course, because someone took the time to write it down!"

Joey, I must reply with His Words. I am instructed to do so. My words, my replies, my ideas hold no weight. They are unimportant. His Words hold truth and our salvation. His words alone.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[ChaosBorders]

.

That isn't completely true Scotracer. Many of us believe. Many of us know. Many never will. For some it's "not gonna happen." For some that think "it's not gonna happen," it will happen.

And, as the number of Ex-Christians indicate, some who "believe" and "know" now (perhaps fervently so) will come to realize that what they believed and "knew" was nothing more than the product of religious training or indoctrination or of imagination (theirs or others').

And how many more have come to love our Father despite false teachers, man's doctrine, man's religion? How many now SEE where they were blind? How many now LIVE where they were dead?

Given Chrisitianity is on the decline, comparatively speaking, I'm not sure the word 'more' is quite accurate.

I don't know if it is on the decline....I truly have no idea. But, much of what goes on today in the "name of" religion is false. Many that love God have or shall fall into apostasy through deception.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm It is.

I would also advise you not to be so arrogant as to be certain you are one of the 'lucky' ones who knows God's will while 'others' are being deceived.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 195:

Joey, I must reply with His Words. I am instructed to do so. My words, my replies, my ideas hold no weight. They are unimportant. His Words hold truth and our salvation. His words alone.

In other words, you're aware of why circular references are faulty, but will continue to use such.

Impediment to learning indeed.

Only in religion are folks required to accept faulty logic.

[Cathar1950]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It can be quite frustrating to see one continually using circular references, even more so when it's been explained why such references are faulty.

I know the feeling Joey....there are times I feel I should shower, "lather, rinse, repeat," after reading some of the words used in reference to God.

And whirlwind wins on the counter-punch.

My point though was how challenging theist claims is often met with more claims - from the book making the claims. You tells folks how such circular references are invalid, and then they go on using such. If certain religious beliefs prevent the incorporation of new and better thoughts and such, then those beliefs are an impediment to learning.

I would respectfully call out whirlwind here (noting this is purely my perspective), and feel these 'fori', and this thread specifically, support my notion. When challenged to support biblical claims, whirlwind will often present more biblical claims, as if the issuing of "compounding claims" somehow resolves or supports previous claims...

I challenge you to show the following:

1- There's a god (for thoroughness, I understand theists hate this challenge)
2- This god had a son
3- This son was Jesus
4- This son gave anything to anyone.

It is written....have ye not read?

The original claimant, upon challenge, offers up the "fact" that these claims have been written down somewhere. Written down. Heck, someone mighta hollered 'em up from a mountain on high.
Where does the claimant actually attempt to support the claims?

The impediment to learning is obvious when the claimant is unable to understand that faulty logic will likely produce faulty results.

A wolf and a pig go to the grocery. The wolf buys a goat and the pig buys a frog. The goat and the frog decide to have a barbecue, and they cook up the pig. The wolf dives in and says, "Dangitall, ham is great!".

Except for the universally, objectively held notion that ham is great, is it possible for me to support any of all that?

"Of course, because someone took the time to write it down!"

Joey, I must reply with His Words. I am instructed to do so. My words, my replies, my ideas hold no weight. They are unimportant. His Words hold truth and our salvation. His words alone.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Of course the Word of God here is a metaphor and doesn't mean the Bible.

[Grumpy]

whirlwind

Joey, I must reply with His Words. I am instructed to do so. My words, my replies, my ideas hold no weight. They are unimportant. His Words hold truth and our salvation. His words alone.

Should any god(s) actually exist it would be fraught with peril to falsely claim to be his spokesperson. Or are you claiming to hear a voice telling you things? Maybe you think you are specially gifted in translating ancient texts? Pride? Hubris? Error? Intent? Maybe. Mindlessness and obstructive of learning? Absolutely. Thanks for making that so clear.

Grumpy

[Cathar1950]

whirlwind

Joey, I must reply with His Words. I am instructed to do so. My words, my replies, my ideas hold no weight. They are unimportant. His Words hold truth and our salvation. His words alone.

Should any god(s) actually exist it would be fraught with peril to falsely claim to be his spokesperson. Or are you claiming to hear a voice telling you things? Maybe you think you are specially gifted in translating ancient texts? Pride? Hubris? Error? Intent? Maybe. Mindlessness and obstructive of learning? Absolutely. Thanks for making that so clear.

Grumpy

It does come across as a false humility where unknowingly the Believer's conception of the Word of God or feelings and their interpretation is equated with God Himself.
Then they claim it isn't them it is God.
So much for their free-will.