Why do I find Evangelical Christians irritating?

[Free Northman Reborn]

51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zelt,

Thank you.  It is the hypocrisy of my irritation that I'm attempting to remedy and fight against.  I'm seeking to be more gracious to everyone.

As a neutral observer, Scot, I can absolutely state that lack of graciousness, civility and politeness is certainly not something you have to worry about. Ironically, that is the one area in which you are an "extremist".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Castel said:

Yes.Or...is your further public self-criticism itself another display of "humble-bragging" and performative humility?

Hm...maybe the most humble thing is...to not be humble.

It is an it's not. 

I'm genuinely struggling with this one because I really do find the evangelical schitck irritating beyond belief.  I don't normally choose to spend a lot of time with aggressive evangelicals because I find it so irritating.  Now, because I love my daughter and she really enjoys this I'm going to.  It also means I'm going to have to censor myself.  I hate that. 
 

:grumble:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,
 

Thank you.  My difficulty is that I really don't want to be gracious toward them.  That's where I'm failing. 

I got a talking to for having an intense discussion with a bunch of competitors last year explaining why their view that the world is 6000 years old is dead flat wrong.  Apparently, my doing that was impolitic. 

In fairness I was a 44 year old man talking with a bunch of high schoolers who'd been indoctrinated into young Earth Creationism.  It's not like they could really call me out without getting in trouble for being rude to an adult.

[Ice Queen]

17 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm Christian.  I don't wear my faith on my sleeve but I'm in church every sunday and not infrequently there for vespers on Wednesday and Saturday nights.  I have a child involved with a Christian Debate league that is largely made up of evangelical Christians.  Many of the are Young Earth Creationists as I discovered last year when the subject of the age of the universe came up in the course of a normal conversation (I didn't raise the issue). 

Why do I find Evangelicals so irriatating?  They're like fingers down a chalkboard.  My child really enjoys debate and this group in particular so I'm gritting my teeth and volunteering as a judge. 

What is wrong with me that I want to scream everytime I hear someone recommending that we "pray" before we finalize a debate ballot or invoking Christ's name at every opportunity in normal coversation.  Why, given that I am also Christian, is this so irritating to me?  I think it's easier for me to hang out with atheists who think I'm a religous nutjob than it is to spend time with Evangelicals.  Why is this?

Thanks.

 

You find them irritating because they ARE irritating. I've got plenty of them in my family--and believe me, weddings, family reunions and funerals are torture. Especially funerals. Honestly, if I hear one more "Hallelujah praise the Lord!" I'm going to smack one of them. Born again Christians are the WORST. My grandfather might have moved the family north of the Mason Dixon line in the 1940's, but you can't get rid of that influence. 

One of my cousins is a Baptist minister. I remember when I was a teenager he planned an intervention for my dad, who has had PTSD for 50 years from spending 3 years in Vietnam and Cambodia. He was a major alcoholic and had done every drug known to man. My dad sat there and laughed at their prayer circle even as they were praying for his immortal soul and for God to cleanse the evil from him. 

If they really wanted to help him, they'd have gotten him to a doctor. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,
 

Thank you.  My difficulty is that I really don't want to be gracious toward them.  That's where I'm failing. 

I got a talking to for having an intense discussion with a bunch of competitors last year explaining why their view that the world is 6000 years old is dead flat wrong.  Apparently, my doing that was impolitic. 

In fairness I was a 44 year old man talking with a bunch of high schoolers who'd been indoctrinated into young Earth Creationism.  It's not like they could really call me out without getting in trouble for being rude to an adult.

My view on this is slightly different. Personally, I believe that the Universe is 13.7 billion (or whatever the latest calculation is) years old, and that the dating techniques used by science all seem to consistently point this out. However, should there be a sudden confirmation that 6000 years is in fact the true age of the Earth, well, my world isn't going to come crashing down. My reaction would be more along the lines of:

"Well golly, they were right after all".

In other words, I am not emotionally invested in scientism. I love the knowledge it provides to us, but I don't need it to be true to justify my world view.

As for evolution, well, I have more difficulties with that. I am not against the idea that Creation was left to evolve on its own over billions of years, with some hidden Divine guidance behind the scenes, but much of evolutionary theory seems to be a desperate attempt to make things fit without the need for a Creator. The probabilities of it seem to be low to the point of absurdity to me. But that's for me to sort out in my own mind.

 

[Castel]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In other words, I am not emotionally invested in scientism.

 

You don't need to be emotionally invested in scientism to have a problem with YEC anymore than you need to be emotionally invested in some sort of historical or theological supremacy theory to have a problem with  a mythicist position on Jesus or Caesar, or claiming the Bible was a Zoroastrian text.

 

I mean...Ser Scot and scientism? Really?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My wife claims that science is my real religion.  

Which makes the snarky side of me want to go to an NCFCA tournament with the XKCD tee shirt that says "Science! It works bitches!!"

But that would go over very poorly.

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, Castel said:

 

You don't need to be emotionally invested in scientism to have a problem with YEC anymore than you need to be emotionally invested in some sort of historical or theological supremacy theory to have a problem with  a mythicist position on Jesus or Caesar, or claiming the Bible was a Zoroastrian text.

 

I mean...Ser Scot and scientism? Really?

 

Ah, sorry. I wasn't juxtaposing my entire position with Scot's. Just kind of following a "gardener" approach to outlining my view.

Basically, I don't get angry at YEC. I just don't agree with the entirely.

[Castel]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My wife claims that science is my real religion.  

Really?Cause I haven't seen you at the meetings...

You spend too much time worrying about philosophy to be part of the scientism crowd Scot. You need to read more Sam Harris

 

FNR,

Fair enough, noted.

[Ice Queen]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for evolution, well, I have more difficulties with that. I am not against the idea that Creation was left to evolve on its own over billions of years, with some hidden Divine guidance behind the scenes, but much of evolutionary theory seems to be a desperate attempt to make things fit without the need for a Creator. The probabilities of it seem to be low to the point of absurdity to me. But that's for me to sort out in my own mind.

 

Oh, dear, I see shades of Dembski here.

The probability is easy: p=1 because we're here: life exists.

What you're proposing is a misuse of probability and assumes that evolution is an all or nothing random trial. It doesn't take into account that biological structures themselves evolved and what we see is the result of a long line of intermediate steps that are still evolving. 

You also have to ask yourself what are the odds that an omnipotent creator exists.

One other thing that people don't consider: that this is a big false dichotomy. There are a couple of other possibilities. The first is that the universe itself is subject to the laws of natural selection. See Lee Smolin and his wonderful book The Life of the Cosmos. Part B to that is that life is in immutable property of the universe: that it just IS and always has been. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Oh, dear, I see shades of Dembski here.

The probability is easy: p=1 because we're here: life exists.

What you're proposing is a misuse of probability and assumes that evolution is an all or nothing random trial. It doesn't take into account that biological structures themselves evolved and what we see is the result of a long line of intermediate steps that are still evolving. 

You also have to ask yourself what are the odds that an omnipotent creator exists.

One other thing that people don't consider: that this is a big false dichotomy. There are a couple of other possibilities. The first is that the universe itself is subject to the laws of natural selection. See Lee Smolin and his wonderful book The Life of the Cosmos. Part B to that is that life is in immutable property of the universe: that it just IS and always has been. 

Wrong. The p=1 assumes that there is no Creator. An assumption that starts at the end of your argument.

And furthermore, it assumes that there is no other natural theory for the fossil record to exist and for species to have appeared, except for evolution.

It is no misuse of probability to try and calculate the probability of random mutations taking us from nothing to all the species that have existed over the course of 4 billion years.

 

[sologdin]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because, and sorry if this hits a bit close to home, (but you did ask), you appear to be a follower of Christian traditions and values, without necessarily being a believer in the truth of the Christian gospel as communicated in the Bible.

For example, I've heard some Anglicans call themselves Christians, while still expressing doubts over some of Christianity's core beliefs, such as the Virgin birth, whether those who aren't Christians are destined for Hell, and sometimes even whether God exists in the first place.

Now, don't get me wrong. No one can or should dictate whether someone should believe in something or not. But in my view it becomes a bit pointless calling yourself a Christian if you don't believe in some very significant cornerstones of the Christian faith.

Rather call yourself a follower of some of Christianity's values then, because that is a much more accurate reflection of the true state of affairs.

that's damned interesting.  what would the bare essence of christianity be?  can you cut out everything but the resurrection of christ and still get there?  do we need the anti-sodomy rules, for instance, or the young earth creationism?  those two items seem fairly incidental and attenuated in comparison to the core christological and soteriological questions, say.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

that's damned interesting.  what would the bare essence of christianity be?  can you cut out everything but the resurrection of christ and still get there?  do we need the anti-sodomy rules, for instance, or the young earth creationism?  those two items seem fairly incidental and attenuated in comparison to the core christological and soteriological questions, say.  

Well I would say Evangelicals have it pretty spot on. I don't know if Evangelicals are by default YEC, as I certainly see room for the Genesis account to be symbolic in nature, outlining a broad truth rather than a strictly chronological record of how the Earth formed.

But at a minimum I would say that the message that there is no way to salvation except through Christ would pretty much be the cornerstone of the Christian faith. And if you interpret that strictly, you should indeed be standing on the rooftops trying to convert everyone who has only 70 or so years on this Earth to be saved  from damnation.

The fact that I don't do that, is really out of selfishness, to avoid social discomfort, I guess. It is actually an indictment of me, when you get right down to it, as it proves that I don't really care enough about other people to undergo discomfort and awkward interactions to get them saved.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

So, you don't care for the statement "Preach the gospel always... when necessary use words."?

[Ice Queen]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wrong. The p=1 assumes that there is no Creator. An assumption that starts at the end of your argument.

And furthermore, it assumes that there is no other natural theory for the fossil record to exist and for species to have appeared, except for evolution.

It is no misuse of probability to try and calculate the probability of random mutations taking us from nothing to all the species that have existed over the course of 4 billion years.

 

Okay. Go find a mammal fossil from the Precambrian. Good luck with that. Evolution is a process, not an end result. 

One thing to keep in mind. Random does not equal blind chance. Natural selection isn't blind chance and it's not non-random. Randomness is the measure of uncertainty of the outcome. It's not haphazard or willy nilly. Random events by themselves can appear random, but if you have enough of the frequency of the outcomes can be predicted. 

Natural selection is the end result of genetic variation (provided by mutations), heredity and differential reproduction. There's nothing mysterious about it. 

p=1 is the chance of life existing (via evolution), and it most certainly does. You're misusing Borel's Law. 

[sologdin]

genesis very plainly ties knowledge to observation--YHWH 'saw' moments of creation (1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, 1:25, 1:31), which indicates that the hebrew scripture in its P text variant endorses an empiricist epistemology.  YHWH should therefore in this instance recommend by example in favor of macro-evolutionary theory and against young earth creationism.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

So, you don't care for the statement "Preach the gospel always... when necessary use words."?

If you knew an asteroid was going to impact the ocean at some point in the future, sending a tsunami to kill everyone who does not make it to high ground in time, would you choose to announce it to all and sundry at every possible opportunity, or would you try and help them with good deeds, kindness and grace instead, to try and win their confidence?

Because I presume that the reason you are living this life of good deeds is in order to get into a position to influence their choice of religion at some point in future, rather than just doing good deeds for their own sake, leaving the fate of their souls to themselves?

[Tywin et al.]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Do you have some skepticism about your faith, and if so, are you comfortable with that? 

[Castel]

25 minutes ago, sologdin said:

that's damned interesting.  what would the bare essence of christianity be?  can you cut out everything but the resurrection of christ and still get there?  do we need the anti-sodomy rules, for instance, or the young earth creationism?  those two items seem fairly incidental and attenuated in comparison to the core christological and soteriological questions, say.  

There have to be some Christian scholars out there with a really pared down Christology that would be considered impolite in conservative churches.

 

I wonder what the most radical would be? Skepticism about virgin birth is probably certainly up there?

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Okay. Go find a mammal fossil from the Precambrian. Good luck with that. Evolution is a process, not an end result. 

One thing to keep in mind. Random does not equal blind chance. Natural selection isn't blind chance and it's not non-random. Randomness is the measure of uncertainty of the outcome. It's not haphazard or willy nilly. Random events by themselves can appear random, but if you have enough of the frequency of the outcomes can be predicted. 

Natural selection is the end result of genetic variation (provided by mutations), heredity and differential reproduction. There's nothing mysterious about it. 

p=1 is the chance of life existing (via evolution), and it most certainly does. You're misusing Borel's Law. 

Almost right. p=1 is the chance of life existing. Full stop.