Religion
Related: About this forumWhy evangelicals might vote for Roy Moore anyway
From the article:
It holds that evangelicals should examine other peoples underlying suppositions before debating them. If those people or groups dont adhere to the right worldview one that accepts the Bible as the inerrant word of God they should not be trusted.
To read more:
http://religionnews.com/2017/11/20/why-evangelicals-might-vote-for-roy-moore-anyway/
As a progressive, and as someone who was not raised in an evangelical environment, this "presuppositionalism is an interesting concept that could certainly explain the resistance to science, especially as relates to evolution, and a resistance to any dialogue.
FM123
(10,054 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)unblock
(52,503 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And a refusal to consider actual dialogue.
unblock
(52,503 posts)i think their closed-mindedness is based on bigotry -- they will consider actual dialogue from the "right" sources.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)PhilosopherKing
(317 posts)One of the biggest social problems that we have is of people who want to NOT know things.
Girard442
(6,088 posts)Like, say, loyalty to the Fuhrer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If the default position is "faith is a farce," where do you go from there? Conversation is pretty much over.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Are you saying that liberals, or a subset of liberals, can also share this idea, but framed differently?
So when people dismiss faith as silly superstition, or a manifestation of mental illness, or other silly dismissive rhetoric, is that the non-theistic counterpart?
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 21, 2017, 08:22 PM - Edit history (2)
But do carry on.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or persist in your interpretation.
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Inadvertently or not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)Your article excerpt says the following:
It holds that evangelicals should examine other peoples underlying suppositions before debating them. If those people or groups dont adhere to the right worldview one that accepts the Bible as the inerrant word of God they should not be trusted.
It is describing how some evangelicals reject anything on any subject from a source that fails their "suppositions test". You and your buddy went on to attack people here as also being "presuppositionalists" because some of us reject religiosity as idiocy. We do. What we don't do is reject everything you have to say on any subject just because you have an idiotic belief in sky-beings.
There is no requirement to take a neutral position on all issues. Do you dismiss as idiocy randian libertarianism? I do, but I know quite a few libertarians who are not complete idiots and who have interesting views on subjects other than their dystopian economic philosophy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No nuance there, simply a rejection and a dismissal as idiocy of a belief shared by 85% of your fellow humans.
What is interesting to me is how a very few atheists who complain about the intolerance of some theists are willing to engage in the same intolerance, and to defend such intolerance when it is practiced by other atheists.
Proving the point that intolerance is a human failing.
I cannot speak for yallerdawg, but I was making a point of how those who condemn others should remove the beam from their own eyes prior to removing the speck from their neighbors' eyes. And I suspect that yallerdawg was making the exact same point.
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)Nor is it presuppositionalism, the topic of you op.
Perhaps a bigger shovel would help.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thank you for proving, inadvertently or not, the point.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)In your own clear words, without reference to another post or to the behavior of another poster.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But considering how much mis-framing occurs here, I will allow the poster's comment about idiocy to stand. And considering that yallerdawg and I both understood what the point was, I see no real need.
But you might wish to ask the other poster what the point was in that post also. The one referencing religious idiocy.
Or not.
Or you might wish to ask the poster who described religious belief as evidence of a mental illness what that meant also.
Or not.
Edited at 4:18 to add:
Or you might wish to read #29 and tell us what you understood from it.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I could, but I wouldn't want to embarrass Tom Brady, so I won't do it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I will not.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)You seem to prefer standing on the field pretending to play.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Just like your excerpt describes in the OP (my excerpt is more from Ms. Worthen).
Liberal secular humanism is not a neutral position.
If we are the tolerant and inclusive people, our "presuppositions" about faith and religion have to be transformed or we can have no dialogue - and we lose all of them, which we have been doing steadily since Reagan.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,414 posts)It argues that fundamentalists cannot trust non-fundamentalists on any topic, political, social, economic etc. because they don't start from taking the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
"Liberal secular humanism is not a neutral position" is not what Dr. Worthen says; she was describing what the fundamentalists say.
What she does say for herself is:
...
As nonbelievers tangle with traditional Christians over same-sex marriage and navigate conflicts between conservative Muslims and liberal democracy, they will need a confident humanist moral philosophy. The secular humanist liberation movement, in its zeal to win over religious America, should not encourage nonbelievers to turn away from their own intellectual heritage at the time when they will want it most.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/molly-worthen-wanted-a-theology-of-atheism.html
To be a non-believing equivalent of the Christian fundamentalists using presuppositionalism, one would have to say "I will only engage with, or vote for, definite atheists - Clinton, Obama, the vast majority of Democratic politicians are all useless on all subjects because they are religious". People who think like that are incredibly rare; I doubt anyone here can name a public figure who says that. I don't think there's a DUer who does, either.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Secular humanist presuppositionalism begins with there is no God.
The "debate" we dodge around here is in finding a common ground - because it continually spins back to the core presupposition - there is no god.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,414 posts)It's to say that all arguments of someone starting from the "wrong" position are invalid. Specifically, this is talking about political support.
I don't think you'll be able to give an example of a secular humanist presuppositionalist.
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)when it comes to nazis. I really dont care what nazis have to say about anything.
Anyone here think we should listen to nazis?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Also, there is always the possibility of someone changing. Not necessarily through a one off argument, but through learning to see the "other" as real human beings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.84b37635c06e
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)on any subject. There is a difference.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And if I have the opportunity, I talk to them. But not on the internet. In person. So we can look at each other as human beings.
Voltaire2
(13,270 posts)That pretty much ends discourse.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Mariana
(14,863 posts)"He may be a sonofa -----, but he's our sonofa-----." He'll push their agenda, that is all that matters to them.
We also have to remember that many Christians have deluded themselves into believing that Moore never did any of it. The women are lying. The creepy yearbook inscription is fake. He never went to any mall to pick up girls. Etc. The forces of Satan are conspiring to destroy this fine man of God and champion of the faith, and prevent him from going to Washington to do God's work there. Those inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land will vote for him no matter what may come out.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)2 different countries, each dismissing the other.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I have a reputation to uphold.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)Hey Everyone! Gil agreed 100% with something I posted in the Religion Group! Please prepare yourselves for the end of the world, which must be imminent.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)See, we really really do agree!
I've lived in Alabama and in several other Bible Belt states. I've attended evangelical churches in all of those places. Now, I live in New England. When I try to explain the thought processes of Moore's supporters in Alabama to my friends (Christian and otherwise) here, they do not understand at all. It's not that they don't agree with Moore's supporters, although of course they don't. It more that such thinking is so far outside their experience that they have no idea what I'm even talking about. It is utterly alien.
Edited for clarity.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Another country indeed. It seems to me that the southern states still have not realized that your civil war is over. The culture seems so different, especially the idea that the north dominates the south.
So how can that be repaired?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)The allegations against Moore are all from before his marriage, and fundies may well believe that the marriage was part of Jaysus' plan to "cure" him.
Besides, the right wing is out to make Jones look very far to the left, and Moore could benefit from the "lesser evil" calibrations of the fundamentalist mind.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but I also believe in the injunction to go and sin no more. Moore apparently missed that part.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)since he was married, then this is a different ballgame. Fundies, especially Southern ones, will have that "boys will be boys" attitude that excuses bad behavior prior to marriage, but condemns it a bit more strongly (sometimes) after marriage.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,860 posts)Their main focus is the effect on the general populace, not the sins of the "powerful leader" who enforces them.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,151 posts)they have rights, rights to their own bodies and a right to an independent opinion or position.
It sort of makes sense they wouldnt be all that bothered by women being abused, it sort of all makes sense when you think about it, to them anyway.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Possible. I do not know enough female evangelicals to have a strong opinion, but the few that I know are not like that.