The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[Jose Fly]

Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Not necessarily IMO. It's a bit of a nuance, but an important one...

Several years ago, I encountered what I still think of as one of the few "truly honest creationists" I've ever met. He let me know right away that he did indeed interpret Genesis literally, and believed everything in the universe was less than 10,000 years old, humans were completely separate creations, and Noah's flood was a literal global event. He said he believed those things for one reason and one reason only....that's what the Word of God says.

But when it came to science, he told me that he didn't care at all what scientists discovered, analyzed, and concluded. Scientists could say everything was 10 trillion or 10 years old and it wouldn't matter to him one bit. IOW, science was completely irrelevant to him. He never talked about anything specific about science, never repeated creationist talking points, or tried to argue against science in any way. He basically stuck to "This is what the Bible says, I believe it's God's word, so that's what I believe".

So the nuance is the difference between denying science and effectively ignoring science. It's kind of like how I approach the Bhagavad Gita...I don't really know what's in it or much at all about it; it is completely irrelevant to me. Does that make me a "Bhagavad Gita denier"? I don't think so.

Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

It depends on why you participate in them. If you're looking for a challenging intellectual exchange, you'll likely be disappointed (sometimes severely so); the same is true if you're looking for an actual formal debate. But if you're using them as motivation to teach yourself some science you wouldn't otherwise learn, or if you're interested in using them as a way to convey some science to people on the sidelines ("lurkers") they can be very positive.

And if you're like me and your primary interest is in human behavior, they can be quite fascinating.

[Diogenes]

So the nuance is the difference between denying science and effectively ignoring science. It's kind of like how I approach the Bhagavad Gita...I don't really know what's in it or much at all about it; it is completely irrelevant to me. Does that make me a "Bhagavad Gita denier"? I don't think so.

Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

It depends on why you participate in them. If you're looking for a challenging intellectual exchange, you'll likely be disappointed (sometimes severely so); the same is true if you're looking for an actual formal debate. But if you're using them as motivation to teach yourself some science you wouldn't otherwise learn, or if you're interested in using them as a way to convey some science to people on the sidelines ("lurkers") they can be very positive.

And if you're like me and your primary interest is in human behavior, they can be quite fascinating.

Good points. I too use the discussions to motivate me to look things up, generally science and history. I also agree that the discussions/debates are valuable in terms of insights into human behavior. Tho' I agree there is a distinction between denying and ignoring, I think it is blurred by the fact we are likely to ignore things we suspect are not worth knowing (at least to a degree). I suspect we both value science as one of the more reliable ways "to know" and that we ignore the Bhagavad Gita because we suspect it is not as valuable a path to objective truth as science is; that we would in fact deny its value as a predictive method in terms of objective reality.

[Inquirer]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

This hinges upon what one means by "literally". Does scripture itself declare itself to be "literal"? This is an important question because until we know what "literally" means and that it means the same thing to each of us, we'll likely not get far discussing this.

Note too how Christ gave examples of how scripture is not "literal" because he spoke in parables, so can we interpret all of scripture as parable?

[Diogenes]

This hinges upon what one means by "literally". Does scripture itself declare itself to be "literal"? This is an important question because until we know what "literally" means and that it means the same thing to each of us, we'll likely not get far discussing this.

Note too how Christ gave examples of how scripture is not "literal" because he spoke in parables, so can we interpret all of scripture as parable?

I am referring to those who actually belief God created the Earth in six days 6000 years ago, OR that Noah built an ark and actually put 2 of each species on it to save them from a worldwide flood, OR that the Tower of Babel fable actually happened; that evolution is myth; OR that the Earth or Sun actually stood still for a day. Each of these is utter nonsense and forces a believer to dispute science. That has the result of them devaluing science in general and thus losing touch with reality in favor of a 'higher reality' which is based on fantasy and 'magic,' AKA the 'supernatural.' My thesis is that this can be crippling to the intellect.

[Jose Fly]

Good points.

Thanks!

I too use the discussions to motivate me to look things up, generally science and history. I also agree that the discussions/debates are valuable in terms of insights into human behavior.

Yep. I doubt I would ever have learned as much as I have about things like paleontology were it not for these debates.

Tho' I agree there is a distinction between denying and ignoring, I think it is blurred by the fact we are likely to ignore things we suspect are not worth knowing (at least to a degree). I suspect we both value science as one of the more reliable ways "to know" and that we ignore the Bhagavad Gita because we suspect it is not as valuable a path to objective truth as science is; that we would in fact deny its value as a predictive method in terms of objective reality.

That's very true. I suppose if I were surrounded by the products of applications of the Bhagavad Gita it would take a pretty significant amount of effort to ignore it as a source of knowledge. The fact that I effectively never hear of it, see it, or see anyone using it makes it quite easy for me to ignore.

But ignoring science in western society? That's a very different situation.

[EarthScienceguy]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

Why do you say that young earth creationists reject basic science? What science are you referring to? Everything you spoke about in your op was about events that have never been observed and are based on uniformitarian principles. There are creationists that have taught at major universities with doctorates in scientific disciplines. Walt Brown received his degree from MIT. Humphrey's received his doctorate in physics, Danny Faulkner in astronomy, and many others with their doctorate in different scientific disciplines. So what observations are you basing your assertion that young Earth Creationists reject science?

YEC would reject uniformitarianism but those that believe in deep time use catastrophic events to explain the extinctions found in the fossil record so they only believe in uniformitarianism when it suits their theory. The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water. They have to involve water otherwise no fossils would form.

[dad1]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

Science and the various branches of science are not something that must be swallowed whole. The thinking person looks at things for what they are worth and according to evidence. The aspects of biology (or what is included as supposedly part of this or other sciences) that people who believe in the truth of God in Scripture reject are basically wild faith based conjecture. For example, if you claimed were were relatives with the flatworm, that can be flatly ridiculed and utterly rejected as nonsense.

[Diogenes]

Science and the various branches of science are not something that must be swallowed whole. The thinking person looks at things for what they are worth and according to evidence. The aspects of biology (or what is included as supposedly part of this or other sciences) that people who believe in the truth of God in Scripture reject are basically wild faith based conjecture. For example, if you claimed were were relatives with the flatworm, that can be flatly ridiculed and utterly rejected as nonsense.

You've proved my thesis very well; there is no point in trying to discuss with you the real world as understood by the sciences.

Let me ask a distantly related question I'll make part of a new subtopic:

Why would a being so vast and powerful that it could create not just our entire world just by thinking it so, but the universe as well, why would such an entity rely on an ancient nomadic tribe and copies of copies, translations of translations by dozens of different authors to communicate with us?

Such an all powerful and unimaginable intelligence could easily communicate with each and every individual directly and continuously. 'Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

__ Luke 12:6-7
viewtopic.php?t=39685

[Jose Fly]

Everything you spoke about in your op was about events that have never been observed and are based on uniformitarian principles.

So? Are you saying that if it involves unobserved events and uniformitarianism, it's not science?