So a born-again christian, religious jew, and atheist start talking

[RebelSansCause]

I got into a discussion late last night with these two kids at a party in college about religion faith etc. one of them is essentially a born-again christian (even though she was so tolerating and non-proselytizing that it truly destroyed some of my pre-conceived and harbored biases (a good thing)) a pretty religious jew and myself, an atheist. after spiraling in and out of this and that, we come to the matter of creationism and evolution. i of course said that they should not be teaching creationism in public school or ID for that matter because it's just creationism re-worded. when they contended that we should be teaching creationism i pointed to the distinct lack of...umm all credible scientific evidence. their rejoinder was that the bible is evidence. now when i told them that the bible, and there is fairly good proof of this, had been written by multiple persons/sources throughout maybe 5 centuries before being later redacted into it's current form, they contended with maybe we don't know how god tries to display his message. so i'm sitting there, and i have absolutely no idea what to do. should i keep on going? should i just kinda nod and change the subject? i dont want to offend these people by telling them that there is no logical base etc etc. but, cmon??? i'm at COLLEGE and a very well known one too. (NYU) this should be a place of critical thought, not dogmatic. i didn't expect to encounter this pure amount of ridiculousness (i am truly sorry if this offends you but teaching creation as a theory right alongside of evolution? does that mean we teach about the FSM too? this infuriated me). but what should i have done? what would you do under the circumstances? maybe grab a beer and change the subject?

[Critters2]

1. I'd discuss it in R/T, if at all. But that's me. nt

[PassingFair]

2. I like to ask which "creation" they want to teach. I like THIS one:

From Egypt:

Atum20 functions as the creator god from whom the other eight gods originate. Pyramid Text 1655 lists the gods of the Great Ennead and acknowledges Atum as the father of the other eight. It reads, “O you Great Ennead which is on Ōn21 (Heliopolis), (namely) Atum, Shu, Tefēnet, Gēb, Nūt, Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys; O you children of Atum, extend his goodwill to his child in your name of Nine Bows.”22 Atum arises first from the primordial waters (personified as Nun) from which also emerges the primeval hill.23 He takes his stand on the primeval hill, and begins his work of creation. Not having a consort, he masturbates to bring forth other gods to assist him in creation. Pyramid Text 1248 graphically describes this event. “Atum evolved growing ithyphallic, in Heliopolis. He put his penis in his grasp that he might make orgasm with it, and the two siblings were born—Shu and Tefnut.”24

WOW!!! Talk about your Intelligent Designer!

[RebelSansCause]

3. *sigh*

i just don't want to offend people. but they set themselves up so well. i feel like society is moving backward. like on some sort of sinusoidal curve. eventually it will cycle back. but people are so much more zealous now, it's scary. i think it's the age of laziness, but i can't just attack these people's beliefs, that will just perpetuate the "evil atheist" stereotype.

i suppose responding to seeming idiocy with seeming idiocy is A WAY to go about it. but at NYU, i never expected it.

[PassingFair]

5. How is discussing an acknowledged creation belief "attacking" theirs? nt

I LIKE this argument, because it's NOT an attack.

Its a legitimate question for someone who believes in an "Intelligent Designer".

[RebelSansCause]

6. it's not

i just want to somehow convey my...incredulousness that they would wish this to be talk in public school alongside with evolution without offending them. i don't know how i would orchestrate a reasonable argument with people who take something solely by faith. but then again that has always been my problem with religion/faith, it obliterates reason. but they proclaimed that creationism should be taught in public schools because such a large number of person's believed in it. besides not being able to take them seriously (i thought they were kidding and was flabbergasted when i realized they were not) the sheer fallaciousness of their argument is incredible. how do i lucidly respond without being offensive? how do i tell them that i don't want a generation of americans to associate the secular institution of public school with a dogmatic belief? (of course they didn't think public school was particularly secular)

[Kutjara]

4. I can understand how the Christian would...

... believe all that literalist nonsense, what with the toxic effects of fundamentalism all but eviscerating the core teachings of the faith. The Jew, however, should know better. Even at the time it was written (and certainly during the centuries before that when the Torah was a loose collection of oral stories), it was accepted by Jewish scholars that the Creation story was allegorical. It was meant to be interpreted "spiritually," not literally.

Indeed, many theologians of the time were vehemently against the creation of written religious texts, because such documents encouraged doctrinal stridency and rigidity (those guys knew what they were talking about). Oral transmission was better for spiritual teachings, it was felt, because the teaching could be adapted to specific spiritual circumstances and needs. Indeed, even after most of the books that currently comprise the "Jewish Bible" were committed to print, writers would regularly amend or change the stories to make them more relevant to contemporary audiences.

How, therefore, anyone who claims to know anything about the Jewish faith could believe in literal Creationism is beyond me.

Perhaps you can direct your friends to Karen Armstrong's new book "The Bible: A Biography." It's a breath of fresh air in these dark times.

[RebelSansCause]

7. it went further than that

i carefully explained the theory of how the bible came to exist in it's current form. The Yahwehist (J) writer, the Elohist (E) writer, the Priestly additions and revisions, the Deuteronomists, and finally the Redactor over the course of several centuries all of which has not just secular religious credence but is well accepted by various religious figures across the spectrum. however, it was contended that the Bible was simply handed down by God (Yahweh actually). the jew cited the bible as a source of proof to weigh in as heavily as all of the evidence that exists for evolution. what does one do in such a situation? when one refuses to accept knowledge and reasoning. according to their beliefs, the great gifts of humanity, logic and reason would be total and utter junk, worthless in fact.

i guess i was just scared that their existed person's of these thought patterns in a top school of higher education, in a place of critical reasoning. maybe i should expect less, that is one depressing thought.

[Kutjara]

12. You certainly covered all the bases.

For someone to dispute your argument, they don't just have to ignore evolution. They have to ignore history, psychology, politics and philosophy too. In short, they have to have no respect at all for human knowledge. Even the rich and intricate story of how the Bible came into being is ignored with a dismissive "God done it."

I was going to say that people with such attitudes are mentally childish, but that would be wrong. Children have curiosity, ask questions, and are keen critics of answers that don't add up. Fundamentalists of whatever stripe and hue are automatons. Their "truth" is encapsulated and self contained. It is unassailable, inviolable, and eternal. It is also sterile, irrational, and useless - as all dead things are. In their neurotic quest for certainty, fundamentalists have destroyed the essence of spirituality.

I share your despair that such people populate our colleges and universities. Unfortunately, they've penetrated all aspects of life. Maybe the automated, process-driven nature of our society has created a suitable evolutionary environment for the narrow-minded and the dreary to thrive. Not that they'd ever believe evolution was responsible, of course. ;)

[kath]

8. you should have said that God does not belong in science class - not anyone's "god", not ever.

science is based on verifiable, objective phenomena, testable hypotheses, etc. "faith" is not verifiable.

Science belongs in science class. Religion belongs in the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc, or the home, but NEVER in public school. Only exception would be in a comparative religion class, if taught WITHOUT bias.

[DarkTirade]

11. That's just silly... without Zeus we'd never be able to explain how lightning works to kids.

[TrogL]

9. Where else in scholarship would quoting a single source be allowed?

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. And non-peer-reviewed one at that.

But then, most creationist/ID crap doesn't bother with citations or references anyway.

[Generic Brad]

10. I would let it go

You will not change their beliefs as they will not change yours. Live and let live.

I agree with you 100%, though.

[Kali]

13. religion, creationism and other "subjects" of this nature can be taught

in religion classes, creative writing, mythology, etc. NOT AS SCIENCE. It is NOT science. PERIOD.