James, Background and General Discussion

[Lily]

David wrote: " I am not against free speech, In fact, I was excising [exercising?] my own right to condemn the Noah's Ark theme park and its purpose...."

[g] I didn't intend to unleash a tirade, although I rather agree it is deserved. ;-( (If you read my words closely @209, hopefully you can see I was also acknowledging your right to a response.)

I went looking for more about the Answers In Genesis group behind the theme park. The following dismayed me:
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fa...

As much as I cringe at the excesses of writers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, statements like this about so-called "Christian faith" almost lead me to sympathy for those writers' oft times vehemence.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "I went looking for more about the Answers In Genesis group behind the theme park. The following dismayed me:
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fa...."

Which items in their Statement of Faith dismay you in particular?

[Nemo]

David wrote: "There may be some entertainment value. I am sure I would both laugh and cry all the way through it. However, there is nothing whatsoever educational about it. It is purposefully anti-educational"

I don't know for certain, but I think the YECs might feel the same way about the theory of evolution.

[David]

Genni wrote: "David wrote: "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind."

I can understand your concern for the education of children everywhere. But how is this child abuse?."

First, Thank you! Adoption is subject personally near and dear to me.

There are unfortunately many types and degrees of child abuse. You mentioned some terrible examples of physical and mental abuse. I alluded to other forms of mental abuse. Obviously some will judge some forms of abuse more harshly than others. I fail to understand how terrifying and brainwashing a child with the idea they will go to Hell and burn for all eternity if they don't believe in Jesus Christ, YEC, and everything else on Mr. Ham's list of personal beliefs reflected in the ark park and his creation science museum not considered abuse? How is willfully and wrongfully handicapping a child's education not a form of abuse? If you prefer, you can think of my accusation more specifically as they are abusing children's minds?

[David]

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: ". . .The following dismayed me:
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fa...."

Which items in their Statement of Faith dismay you in particular? "

I know the question was meant for Lily, but which items in their statement of hate exclusion bigotry ignorance faith are you not particularly dismayed by?

[David]

Nemo wrote: "I don't know for certain, but I think the YECs might feel the same way about the theory of evolution. "

They do Nemo, the YECs certainly are opposed to evolution, and they are in interesting company, so do the flat earthers, astrologers, Nazis, and ISIS. How is that for a list of straw men?

[Dianne]

Wasn't the whole objective of this reading selection to examine the psychological underpinnings of human experience with religion and not to discuss religion(s) themselves or dispute the merits of them?

[Dianne]

I just think it really detracts from the main point of the discussion.

[David]

Dianne wrote: "Wasn't the whole objective of this reading selection to examine the psychological underpinnings of human experience with religion and not to discuss religion(s) themselves or dispute the merits of ..."

Absolutely. You are witnessing the objective in action when a variety of religious experiences clash. :) It is also an example of how impossible a task is to not only define religion, religious experience, but define it as broadly and vaguely as James is attempting to do. People identify with the specifics of their religious experience and therefore stick with/defend them vigorously, possibly too vigorously. This is also probably a good example of why he avoids discussing religious institutions for the most part. He is trying to claim that religion works, but it seems to have some inherent problems preventing it from doing so in some cases.

[Lily]

Dianne wrote: "Wasn't the whole objective of this reading selection to examine the psychological underpinnings of human experience with religion ..."

That seems to be the major thrust of James intention. He does, however, make statements about the need for judgment upon the validity of concepts of God based upon human understanding at any particular point in history.

Still, in what I take to be the spirit of your comment, I am going to withdraw from further comment on the issues that have been raised here, except to respond to Nemo that the "Answers in Genesis" is so rife with statements that seem contrary to basic tenets of Christianity that I have no interest in parsing them.

[Genni]

David wrote: "There are unfortunately many types and degrees of child abuse. You mentioned some terrible examples of physical and mental abuse. I alluded to other forms of mental abuse. Obviously some will judge some forms of abuse more harshly than others. I fail to understand how terrifying and brainwashing a child with the idea they will go to Hell and burn for all eternity if they don't believe in Jesus Christ, YEC, and everything else on Mr. Ham's list of personal beliefs reflected in the ark park and his creation science museum not considered abuse? How is willfully and wrongfully handicapping a child's education not a form of abuse? If you prefer, you can think of my accusation more specifically as they are abusing children's minds? "

I am going to take a page out of Lily's book here. Defining terms here, I think, is most important. From Oxford Dictionary online:

Definition of child abuse in English:

child abuse
Pronunciation: /CHīld əˈbyo͞oz/
NOUN

Physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.

Definition of brainwash in English:

brainwash
Pronunciation: /ˈbrānˌwôSH/ /ˈbrānˌwäSH/
VERB

[WITH OBJECT]
Make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure:
the organization could brainwash young people
they have been brainwashed into conformity and subservience

Teaching creationism, and I use the term generally because there are different variations and degrees within the term, hardly falls under the first definition.

If you want to use the term "brain-washing ", teaching creationism does not seem to fall in that category either. I mean, it cannot be considered to be a "radically different belief" when it has been the main theory taught (whether rightly or wrongly: the debate about that can go elsewhere) for hundreds of years.

Secondly, what is considered to be "forcible pressure"? As far as I know, YEC's don't want to torture people in a room until they accept their views. They just want creationism to be presented as a viable option beside evolution.

There is also a whole slew of people who believe "theistic evolution". I am curious what your objections to that are?

I am not defending YEC, here. I am just taking issue with the charge of "child abuse".

On a personal level, your statement frightens me. I am a Christian (in spite of my own personal experiences of being frightened with hell as a child), and I have small children. We talk about Christianity. They also have questions about people who don't believe as well as paganism when we read about the ancient Greeks and Romans. I strive to present a balanced view whenever they have questions. When they get older, that will absolutely include evolution. As a Christian, I don't think evolution is necessarily untrue. I never claim that Christianity has all the answers, though I do believe it makes the most sense, compared to the alternatives. I see these discrepancies as an opportunity for them to learn. To think that one day, I could be accused of child abuse for teaching them what I believe to be true is scary. (Actually, it isn't "one day". The accusation has already been made).

[Dianne]

David wrote: "Dianne wrote: "Wasn't the whole objective of this reading selection to examine the psychological underpinnings of human experience with religion and not to discuss religion(s) themselves or dispute..."

This is an excellent point David and well taken. To be honest when you spout vitriol on the point you sound as closed minded as you claim the people you seem to be attacking are. So I definitely see your point, I just don't think it needs to get nasty ;)

Also, in my experience many of a strong religious persuasion, or perhaps in your case, a strong lack thereof, are disinclined to seriously entertain other viewpoints and so the discussion tends to deteriorate into unecessary personal attacks.

[Roger]

James want to talk about religious experience, not religious doctrine.

[Lily]

Roger wrote: "James wants to talk about religious experience, not religious doctrine."

And if I were sitting in the lecture rooms where James was delivering these lectures, I would want to ask him if he had observed differences in the religious experiences of those who received Communion under the auspices of transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. (Now, whether I'd actually have nerve enough to ask the question is another matter.)

[David]

Roger wrote: "James want to talk about religious experience, not religious doctrine."

Sure, but what other than a variety of religious experience inspires these varieties of religious doctrine? All of this "happy and good" that James keeps claiming from religious experience and the excuses he keeps making for a few more questionable results while ignoring the more inexcusable ones is getting a little hard to keep taking.

To keep it a bit safer for everyone, he does mention John Brown by name once. Do you think James is condoning Brown's actions in "Bloody Kansas" and Harper's Ferry as a "happy good" result of his religious experience? To Jame's point, it did enable him to take action where others did not, and it did make him famous.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "...respond to Nemo that the "Answers in Genesis" is so rife with statements that seem contrary to basic tenets of Christianity that I have no interest in parsing them..."

I wish you could be more specific, because I'm interested in your thoughts.

Having being raised an atheist, I've always taken evolution for granted. YECs seemed to me very irrational, if not dishonest. It was not until recently when I watched their public debates that I began to understand their point of view and sympathize with their struggles. If I'm not mistaken, it is the same struggle that participants in this discussion share.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "I wish you could be more specific, because I'm interested in your thoughts...."

Nemo, item after item could have reams of discussion -- and has. I have been privy to some of the discussions and papers that led my denomination (Presbyterian) to shift its formal stance on issues from ordination to marriage to ... My underlying problem with AiG is primarily that it presents itself as so dogmatic, so hard line, so knowing in a faith that has a basic tenet as flexible and difficult and human as do so many other faiths: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or love thy neighbor as thyself. And, underneath it, there is injunction to love thy God with all thy heart and soul. But, the neighbor stuff is probably easier to practice on, difficult as it often is, even to figure out who one's neighbor is. (If human life is about stories, consider how basic immigration is in Biblical stories, from Abraham to Moses to Daniel to Paul...)

If you want to follow part of a path I have traveled these past few years, obtain the series "Living the Question." A number of theologians, ministers, academicians, and others explore the meaning and responsibilities and opportunities of being faithful (Christian) in this 21st Century world. As the very title suggests, these are not answers. But they have felt like better questions.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or love thy neighbor as thyself.."

Perhaps AiG is striving to keep that commandment to the best of their ability and knowledge, just as you are, though your ways of loving your neighbour differ.

[Janice (JG)]

David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I don't know for certain, but I think the YECs might feel the same way about the theory of evolution. "

They do Nemo, the YECs certainly are opposed to evolution, and they are in interesting company, so do the flat earthers, astrologers, Nazis, and ISIS. How is that for a list of straw men?..."

Actually, astrology doesn't belong on that list, since it is based on the ability to grow in potential, over lifetimes.

[David]

Genni wrote: "I am going to take a page out of Lily's book here. Defining terms here,"

I appreciate the definition but it is too narrow.

There are multiple definitions of child psychological abuse:

In 1995, APSAC defined it as: spurning, terrorizing, isolating, exploiting, corrupting, denying emotional responsiveness, or neglect" or "A repeated pattern of caregiver behavior or extreme incident(s) that convey to children that they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or only of value in meeting another's needs"
In the United States, states laws vary, but most have laws against "mental injury"

In 2014, the American Psychological Association stated that:
"Childhood psychological abuse is as harmful as sexual or physical abuse."
"Nearly 3 million U.S. children experience some form of [psychological] maltreatment annually."
Psychological maltreatment is "the most challenging and prevalent form of child abuse and neglect.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_a...

The above definition was provided just to demonstrate the existence of the psychological aspect of child abuse beyond the narrow one we were previously working with.

Having provided that, between your response and the fact that legally, religious teachings themselves do not qualify as abuse, I will withdraw my statement that they do and state I am not accusing you or anyone else here of child abuse. Instead I will just say that I am concerned that religion is psychologically harmful to children.

I am glad Lily posted the AiG statement of faith. (See what you started Lily!) This statement is the same group of people that created the Ark Theme Park and the Creation Science Museum both designed around children. What is the best way to reconcile statements like these to a child to avoid harm?

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
[A child could be made to feel worthless, flawed and responsible for other people's suffering]

All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice), and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
[A child may feel worthless, flawed, and only feel valued in meetings God's needs"]

Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and mankind.
[This can absolutely terrorize a child long into adulthood]

Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
[Again, the concept of Hell and everlasting punishment can be terrifying to a child and they may only valued in meeting God's needs to avoid it]

The only legitimate marriage sanctioned by God is the joining of one naturally born man and one naturally born woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. God intends sexual intimacy to only occur between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexual conduct. . .or any attempt to change one’s gender, or disagreement with one’s biological gender, is sinful and offensive to God.
[This one should not require explanation but some children, especially those that are gay or even confused, may feel worthless, flawed, isolated, unloved, unwanted, endagered, and many a young person has endured homelessness and committed suicide over this particular tenant]

I consider myself lucky to have seen through condemnations like these on my own. I am aware that others in my cohort were harmed at a young age by tenants like these and are still struggling with it now into their 50's.

Teaching YEC, creationism, intelligent design, is tantamount to Christian religious instruction which, like any other religious instruction, does not belong in public schools. Furthermore they teach students that general principles and theories of Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology must be wrong in order that the the Bible can be right as literally interpreted. That qualifies as "radically different" in my book. An adult teacher in a school or in a home teaching this stuff to a child on a daily basis with the threat, real or implied, that if they don't accept the bible at the expense of their academic studies they will burn in hell for all eternity fits my criteria for "systematic, and forcible pressure". Religious studies is encouraged, but maybe that is better left as college level coursework. I hope one day we can study the current religious texts as literature the same way we do Gilgamesh or Ovid's Metamorphoses.

I tried to make theistic evolution work for a time, but eventually determined the Bible, literally or metaphorically, and evolution with the sciences that support it are really not compatible and I could not reasonably reconcile the conflicts between them. What if it was argued that real, god is not necessary, evolution should be taught in churches?

I just viewed a picture from inside the Ark of a sign with a big snake curled around it that reads, "If I can convince you that the flood is not real, I can convince you that Heaven and Hell are not real." So much for a healthy-minded secular tourist attraction. Mr. Ham must be having one happy religious experience today.

[David]

Nemo wrote: "YECs seemed to me very irrational, if not dishonest. It was not until recently when I watched their public debates that I began to understand their point of view and sympathize with their struggles."

How does this sympathy develop despite the "very irrational, if not dishonest" characteristics?

[Janice (JG)]

I agree completely with what James has to say in Lecture 15 (I think), and I feel it might be relevant to quote it here since this discussion is centered around a highly orthodox structured religion:

"A survey of history shows us that, as a rule, religious geniuses attract disciples, and produce groups of sympathizers. When these groups get strong enough to "organize" themselves, they become ecclesiastical institutions with corporate ambitions of their own. The spirit of politics and the lust of dogmatic rule are then apt to enter and to contaminate the originally innocent thing; so that when we hear the word "religion" nowadays, we think inevitably of some "church" or other; and to some persons the word "church" suggests so much hypocrisy and tyranny and meanness and tenacity of superstition that in a wholesale undiscerning way they glory in saying that they are "down" on religion altogether... But in this course of lectures ecclesiastical institutions hardly concern us at all."

[Lily]

Janice(JG) wrote: "...a highly orthodox structured religion:..."

Janice -- Thanks for your attempts to bring this discussion back around to VAR. But please do not use "orthodox" to describe the group that has diverted us. I understand that the word could be used in some of its meanings, but my reaction is that to use it in this context is unfair to some other religious sects (e.g., Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ...).

[Janice (JG)]

Lily wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "...a highly orthodox structured religion:..."

Janice -- Thanks for your attempts to bring this discussion back around to VAR. But please do not use "orthodox" to describe the gr..."

Oh yes, you're right, sorry. I was using it in its primary form, as conventional, but of course it could be misconstrued (at least I didn't capitalize it : )

[Lily]

Janice(JG) wrote: "Lily wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "...a highly orthodox structured religion:..."

Janice -- Thanks for your attempts to bring this discussion back around to VAR. But please do not use "orthodox" to de..."

I wouldn't even consider this group "conventional" (thank goodness! ;-o), but I can agree with "marked by conformity to doctrines or practices."

[Nemo]

David wrote: "How does this sympathy develop despite the "very irrational, if not dishonest" characteristics? ."

When I listened to YECs (yourng-earth creationists), I began to see things that I had neglected before, the blind spots of my mind, so to speak, and realize that I was not completely rational and honest myself. If I understand James correctly, when it comes to belief, whether it be religion or atheism, the irrational part of human nature always comes before the rational.

Like most people, YECs struggle with the problem of evil and suffering: They reject Darwinian evolution partly because of the prevalence of suffering in the evolutionary process. How can a loving God allow it, let alone make use of it? That's a very difficult issue, one which their more enlightened brethren have failed to address satisfactorily.

Like most people of faith, YECs struggle to reconcile faith and reason. They try to maintain their integrity to the best of their ability, or in the words of James, to unify a divided self. On the one hand, they try to faithfully interpret the Bible, which they believe to be the Word of God, on the other hand, they try to interpret nature, the Work of God, and the findings of science, without being unduly influenced by atheistic assumptions and perspectives.

I may not agree with their views, but I think they deserve my respect.

[Nemo]

David wrote: "[A child may feel worthless, flawed, and only feel valued in meetings God's needs"]"

As someone once said, Christianity is the only religion that exalts human beings, the value of an individual, a child even more than a man. Because God so loved and valued him that He died for him.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "I may not agree with their views, but I think they deserve my respect..."

As humans, yes. But, we do have responsibilities to attempt to deflect their imposition on the rights of others. And I am not sure what those responsibilities need to look like. Part is probably for some to speak vociferously (and quietly, in long fought out policy papers and laws that effect thousands) to what they see as not "truth."

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "As someone once said, Christianity is the only religion that exalts human beings, the value of an individual, a child even more than a man. Because God so loved and valued him that He died for him...."

To many, that humankind had a man who taught much about how to live and heal in the midst of violence and suffering is as much an evidence of divine love as is that man's death on the cross.

I also cannot speak as to whether "Christianity is the ONLY religion that exalts human beings." I doubt its accuracy.

P.S. Note the Goodreads quotation today:

"Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world."
Marianne Williamson

Happy birthday, Marianne Williamson! The spiritual author and lecturer has the ultimate can-do attitude. She’s not only written 12 books (many of them New York Times bestsellers), but she’s also the founder of Project Angel Food, a meals-on-wheels program that serves homebound people with AIDS in the Los Angeles area.

[Kerstin]

Nemo wrote: "David wrote: "[A child may feel worthless, flawed, and only feel valued in meetings God's needs"]"

The Judeo-Christian God has no need of anything. He is 'being' itself. The notion that one needs to please a god is pagan.

As someone once said, Christianity is the only religion that exalts human beings, the value of an individual, a child even more than a man. Because God so loved and valued him that He died for him."

Very true! The philosophical roots of the innate dignity of man is Judeo-Christian. This idea (and so many others!) is so deeply part of the fabric of Western thinking that we often are not aware of where it comes from.

I have followed this discussion only in passing, but it seems to me we have to make some distinctions here. Due to the myriad of ways of interpreting scripture in the Protestant 'sola scriptura' fashion, we cannot say that these Christian interpretations are a unified whole. Therefore whatever this "Noah group" is doing is strictly their own perspective.

From a Catholic perspective creationism doesn't make much sense, since the first chapters in the Bible, the Creation and Garden Eden, are allegories. Besides, the Hebrew word for "day" doesn't necessarily mean a 24-hour period. The Catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaitre would have never come up with the Big Bang if he had had a fundamentalist understanding of Creation.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "... we do have responsibilities to attempt to deflect their imposition on the rights of others..."

Sure, that's what democracy is for. But I don't think their building Noah's Ark or their Statement of Faith impose on the rights of others. Freedom of speech is their right too.

[Kerstin]

Lily wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "...a highly orthodox structured religion:..."

..."orthodox" to describe the group that has diverted us. I understand that the word could be used in some of its meanings, but my reaction is that to use it in this context is unfair to some other religious sects (e.g., Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ...).

The word 'orthodox' gets used in so many ways today, mostly in a negative sense, such as "out-of-date," "unyielding," "conforming," etc., often in connection with fundamentalism. This usage is a complete turn-around from what the word actually means. The original Greek meanings, as far as I know them, are translated in the following ways: "true to teaching," "true sweetness," and my personal favorite, "true to splendor."

Now when we apply this to Christianity, then the churches that carefully protected the Apostolic Tradition over the past 2000 years are definitely orthodox, including the ones you mentioned.

To use the word in connection with fundamentalism of any kind seems to me a contradiction.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: " ..that humankind had a man who taught much about how to live and heal in the midst of violence and suffering is as much an evidence of divine love as is that man's death on the cross..."

If I understand Christianity correctly, Christ not only taught man about how to live and heal, but, more importantly, He died for man so that He might empower man to participate in the divine life and nature, in other words, God died that man "may have life and have it abundantly".

None of the other religions offer this gift of life, as far as I know.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "....more importantly, He...."

Lots of room for discussion -- but not here, on this board.

[David]

Janice(JG) wrote: "I agree completely with what James has to say in Lecture 15 (I think), and I feel it might be relevant to quote it here since this discussion is centered around a highly orthodox structured religion:

"A survey of history shows us that, as a rule, religious geniuses attract disciples, and produce groups of sympathizers"

The term "attract" seems too passive, as if religious geniuses live alone on mountaintops minding their own business and other people somehow gravitate to them forming their own groups, with or without corrupting the geniuses' original experiences. This passivity may be case in some examples, but as James reminds us, in other cases the religious geniuses are much more active. They become iconic religious "mover and Shakers (pun intended)" that create their own agendas, preach their experience inspired ideas to others, actively recruit followers, lead movements, and form churches around whatever their religious experience was that inspired them, fact or fiction. James may never suggest it, but some and most likely all religions started in these passive and active ways, including Christianity.

I am also curious why you left out the second to the last sentence of your quote:

Even we who belong to churches do not exempt other churches than our own from the general condemnation.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 261). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

A crucial consequence of the "variety" of religious experiences is the variety of religious beliefs. I understand James' need to create a manageable scope, but is it really fair to ask us to judge religious experiences as good based on their subjective spiritual value alone? It is like asking us to judge the Hilter experience as good based soley on his improving the ecomony, creating jobs, building the autobahn and VW's Beetles: never mind the origins of why he did them, the war, or the rest of his record. The full consequences of religious experience are much more than the good of the inspired sobriety of an AA member. James' restriction of scope at best does not provide us enough information to fully judge the value of religious experience. At worst, it appears he is forcing a favorable judgement of its value by excluding crucial considerations. It gives me the sense that I am being setup for the old negotiation trick of, "find something small they can agree to and get them saying yes then you will have them in an agreeable mood for more."

[Janice (JG)]

David wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "I agree completely with what James has to say in Lecture 15 (I think), and I feel it might be relevant to quote it here since this discussion is centered around a highly orthodox..."

"The term "attract" seems too passive, as if religious geniuses live alone on mountaintops minding their own business and other people somehow gravitate to them forming their own groups, with or without corrupting the geniuses' original experiences...."

Well, I have to disagree with your definition of "attract" as being passive. Most definitions refer to the word "attract" as "cause to come to a place or participate in a venture by offering something of interest, favorable conditions, or opportunities... cause (someone) to have a liking for or interest in something." To cause something to happen requires some kind of action, so by this definition "attract" can not be passive.

"I am also curious why you left out the second to the last sentence of your quote:
Even we who belong to churches do not exempt other churches than our own from the general condemnation...."

I think because it seemed redundant after the comment about being "down" on religions, and it wasn't really the point of interest for me in the paragraph, which was the process of what looks to me like the devolution of a genuine religious experience into an organized, institutional, and political entity with the "lust of dogmatic rule." As sincere as most great religions want to be, this process seems highly evident as they become corporate entities.

[Genni]

David wrote: "Genni wrote: "I am going to take a page out of Lily's book here. Defining terms here,"

I appreciate the definition but it is too narrow.There are multiple definitions of child psychological abuse:..."

I am sorry I didn't see Dianne's reprimand before my first post. I am posting my response to this in the tea shop thread so as not to further derail the conversation.

[Rex]

I've been away from this discussion for some time and am not going to try to respond to everything. Still, I was raised in a YEC-believing church environment. This autumn, I may be teaching for a small classical education program that uses YEC materials (though whether I will come into direct contact with them, I do not know). I have rejected YEC for a number of years now, and increasingly suspect the integrity of the movement's leaders; I think it is pseudoscience and bad theology. But I don't feel as strongly about it as David does.

People who grow up in YEC culture--a small minority of Christians, by the way--typically turn out balanced, intelligent, healthy adults, whether or not they reject the YEC framework in the end. I see nothing in YEC, for all its factual errors and sloppy logic, that necessarily lends itself toward psychological maldevelopment. On the contrary, I would think the danger YEC poses is principally to faith itself: when it is taught as the exclusive Christian view and its fallacies later become apparent, seemingly the only alternative is rejection of Christianity in sum. Factual errors, however countercultural, need not be damaging; they must usually combine with other elements, such as a fundamentalist mindset (which many YECers do not possess; they are simply ill-informed or complacent), before they pose a danger, and that is equally true of not a few legitimate facts. The general secular hostility shown toward YEC has only fueled the rise of such a fundamentalist mindset, making casual adherents feel like they are under attack and look to untrustworthy intellectuals such as Ken Ham. The solution is dialogue, not derision.

I won't dispute that some unrelated and rather less fringe aspects of the Christian tradition, such as teachings on Hell and sexuality, can cause psychological damage; I think you are on firmer ground here, though I might defend these teachings to a certain extent, while leaving YEC to return to its vomit (if you'll pardon the biblical expression). You may have a case against James's optimism about religious experience in the abstract. But I think most Christians' spirituality does not center on damnation or sexual teaching, and if it did, it would be condemned as unhealthy by the larger part of the Church. Damnation is an element of some theologies, certainly, and it has for some sects and individuals gained a centrality disproportionate with its presence in the broader tradition. But does looking at those few obsessed with it get us closer to understanding the nature of religious experience proper, Christian or otherwise? James appears to think not.

[Nemo]

Nemo wrote: "If I understand Christianity correctly, Christ not only taught man about how to live and heal, but, more importantly, He died for man so that He might empower man to participate in the divine life and nature,"

Lily wrote: "Lots of room for discussion -- but not here, on this board."

For those who are interested, in his lecture on conversion (Lecture 10), James quotes the Reformed theologian Jonathan Edwards, who describes the Christian life in terms similar to mine but more august, and James offers valid, constructive criticisms from a practical perspective.

[Nemo]

Kerstin wrote: "From a Catholic perspective creationism doesn't make much sense, since the first chapters in the Bible, the Creation and Garden Eden, are allegories. Besides, the Hebrew word for "day" doesn't necessarily mean a 24-hour period. The Catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaitre would have never come up with the Big Bang if he had had a fundamentalist understanding of Creation. "

All Christians believe God created the universe, but there is a wide range of opinions on how He did it, based on different interpretations of the Scripture and scientific data. It shouldn't be surprising that nobody knows the answer -- if anyone did, he would be omniscient.

One obvious difficulty for YEC is that the two lights commonly understood as the Sun and the Moon weren't created until the fourth day. How do you have 24-hour day without the Sun? On the other hand, if you treat the Creation account in Genesis as pure allegory, how do you explain the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke which traces all the way back to Adam?

Scientists are not without bias either. Many rejected the Big Bang theory on philosophical ground. In an article titled Down with the Big Bang, Sir John Maddox, a longtime editor of Nature, wrote that creationists “have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang”. Sir Fred Hoyle, who Maddox thought should have won the Nobel Prize for his theory of nucleosynthesis, criticized what he called “a deep-rooted attachment to the first pages of Genesis” in the scientific community, and remained opposed to the theory till the end of his life.

[Everyman]

"David wrote: (Quoting Bill Nye) "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind.""

I'm not interested in getting into the merits of that quotation, and I'm not advocating for the Ark builders, but I think it's fair to note that those who built the Ark would have the right to respond that indoctrinating children into the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse and a sin against God, which is worse than a sin against mankind.

Bill Nye is entitled to believe in science, and to try to persuade children of the truth of his belief. But those who believe in the literal Bible are entitled, in a free society, to exactly the same entitlement, aren't they?

But please treat that as a rhetorical question, not one requesting an answer, since the subject has perhaps gone on long enough.

[Nemo]

If man is nothing but matter, it is meaningless to speak of sin.. How does matter sin against matter-kind? And why does it matter?

[David]

Nemo wrote: "If man is nothing but matter, it is meaningless to speak of sin.. How does matter sin against matter-kind? And why does it matter?"

Is that a rhetorical question too, or a cry for help?

[Nemo]

David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "If man is nothing but matter, it is meaningless to speak of sin.. How does matter sin against matter-kind? And why does it matter?"

Is that a rhetorical question too, or a cry for help?"

Neither.

[Lily]

Came across this tonight, a review of a book about one of the Biblical stories, Abraham and Issac, that is fundamental in the three major monotheistic faiths for exploring relationship between God and man and the meanings of morality:

http://artsfuse.org/102739/fuse-book-...

But Where is the Lamb?: Imagining the Story of Abraham and Isaac by James Goodman

[Janice (JG)]

Lily wrote: "Came across this tonight, a review of a book about one of the Biblical stories, Abraham and Issac, that is fundamental in the three major monotheistic faiths for exploring relationship between God ..."

I am currently reading, and loving, Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers. I mention this because Mann does a beautiful job of using the idea of 'types' in this retelling of the biblical story... Abraham and Isaac were dealt with as archetypes of Jacob and his son Joseph, and then of course Joseph and his brothers were also seen as the continuing story of Cain and Abel.

[Lily]

Apparently because I still note Varieties as currently reading, Goodreads suggested the following book: The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto. I found just reading some of the reviews of interest against our discussions here, so on the chance some of you might as well, am posting this here.

(Also interesting to me was to note the somewhat different group of readers than I usually "bump into" on GRs (goodreads).)