CRT Breaks Everything

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 165
#151
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I did read it. I don't read a whole lot of Scientific American, so I don't know how much this stands out from other opinion pieces aside from the content matter. I will say that I disagree with the premise. If the subject matter was different I would expect a different opinion piece to disagree later on, but in this day in age once something is called racist it is basically impossible to defend it.

Having grown up in a highly religious and white community, I never got the impression that anyone was advocating for creationism as a form of white supremacy. Yes, the bible has and still does serve as a justification for racism to some people, but creationism is endorsed because it's in the bible, period. Accepting evolution would be anti-Christian, not anti-White Supremacy.
#152
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't think you realize the category error you made in comparing the objective principles of mathematics
I didn't mention the objective principle of mathematics. ;-)


My point is that even organisms in the same species can be further along in the continuous evolutionary progression than earlier forms of that species.
My objection here has to do with the suggestion that an organism can be 'further along' in evolution. There is no evolutionary direction or destination other than survival.  A population well suited to its environment and another population which has undergone selective pressures and modifications are both just as 'far along. 'More/less evolved' is not a meaningful description, at least, not within the context of evolution.

It seems on this basis alone, you would reject the idea of peppered moths being an example of evolution, correct? Because evolution doesn't recognize a difference between light and dark members of the same species?
You misunderstand. Without a doubt, evolution explains the pigmentation differences. What it does not do is recognize societal/cultural conceptions of race as biologically valid classifications.

Hopefully, this gets us on the same page.
Topic's author
#153
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I didn't mention the objective principle of mathematics.
If you say so.



There is no evolutionary direction or destination other than survival.
So there is an evolutionary direction?


What it does not do is recognize societal/cultural conceptions of race as biologically valid classifications.
My statement about dark-skinned Africans and light-skinned Europeans had nothing to with the manmade categories of race. My point was that even within a single species, the earliest forms of that species are more similar to the latest form of their predecessor species. This is inevitable if species arise by gradual changes in a continuous process.

#154
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
My statement about dark-skinned Africans and light-skinned Europeans had nothing to with the manmade categories of race.
Well, sure it does. You've literally suggested one race is closer to apes and puzzled over why anyone would find that reprehensible:

It seems both of you believe it is reprehensible to make comments regarding the proximity of a particular race to monkeys on the evolutionary timescale.


My point was that even within a single species, the earliest forms of that species are more similar to the latest form of their predecessor species.
Hard agree. However, this is distinctly different than your comment above. The earliest humans were dark-skinned and (being an earlier form) would have been more similar to apes from which we all evolved. It is not dark skin which reflects similarity, but the (lack of) distance in time. 

Tl;dr:
Modern dark skinned humans =/= early humans 
Topic's author
#155
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
Well I'm glad we can at least agree on that.

Accepting evolution would be anti-Christian, not anti-White Supremacy.
It's funny that there are a great number of Christians who don't understand these two points, namely that creation is biblical and not everything is racist.

If you don't mind my asking, was evolution a primary factor in becoming an atheist?
#156
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Personally, I don't see the disconnect with believing in evolution and being a Christian.
A different 'type of Christian I suppose, but the people who believe in both the Bible and evolution, still refer to themselves as Christian, I'd imagine.
Topic's author
#157
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
You've literally suggested one race is closer to apes and puzzled over why anyone would find that reprehensible
You may be confusing my comments. An African is someone who originates from Africa. It is not technically a race. This is why I have commented multiple times that "Asian" is a poor title for a race category. Russians are Asians, yet we don't consider them "Asian."

So if the earliest humans originated in Africa and had dark skin, there seems to be nothing in my allegedly reprehensible comment that contradicts what you stated here:
The earliest humans were dark-skinned and (being an earlier form) would have been more similar to apes from which we all evolved. 
Topic's author
#158
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
While I do believe evolution can be argued against from a purely scientific perspective, I also have a number of theological disagreements. The main one is the mechanism by which evolution is said to occur.

Genesis says that God created the world and it was good, and it was the entrance of sin by Adam and Eve that is the reason for death and disease. Yet if evolution is true, then death and disease must have been present in creation prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve for natural selection to occur. That means death and disease would be part of God's "good" creation, rather than a consequence of sin.
#159
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I 'am rather unfamiliar with the Bible, and how different people interpret it.
Though I have a vague understanding that some view parts of it allegorical, or explanation as best we could give at the time.

"Allegorical interpretation has its origins in both Greek thought and the rabbinical schools of Judaism. In the Middle Ages, it was used by Bible commentators of Christianity."

Though I can understand some people's concern that this leads to a materialist view of the Bible, or a Bible 'without an afterlife, or God in the literal sense.
#160
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
was evolution a primary factor in becoming an atheist?
It was definitely a factor, but I would not call it the primary one.
Topic's author
#161
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
Gotcha. I know I've heard that as a somewhat common reason so I was curious.
Topic's author
#162
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
I think the simplest way to explain how I would argue the Bible should be interpreted is to use the same method of interpretation we use every day. How did you read my last message? You first look at the data. You break it down to the subject and object of the sentence, as well as the main verb. You look for modifiers. Is there an indirect object? If there is a pronoun, what is the antecedent? This becomes so natural that we often forget that we're doing it. But failure to do so results in misinterpretation.

"Jack threw Jim the ball."

After breaking down the sentence, a straightforward interpretation would tell you that a man named Jack threw a ball to a man named Jim. But what if Jack decided to name his ball "Jim." That might seem strange, but it would be a reasonable interpretation with no other context. But this simple approach is different than the allegorical approach.

The allegorical method would accept that the sentence literally means that Jack threw a ball to someone, but there is a hidden spiritual interpretation behind the literal meaning. They might tell you, "What the text truly means is that Jack represents God, Jim represents humanity, and the ball is all the good things that God blessed us with." When people use the allegorical method of interpretation, they are always seeking out these hidden spiritual meanings, even when the context gives no basis for doing so.
#163
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Some stories 'are written for the intent purpose of allegory though?

Additionally, there's the difficulty of time passing. We lose context, we forget what a word 'meant to people thousands of years ago, or we use a 'different word in a new language, we forget customs, historical happenings, 'people that once existed thousands of years ago and their 'place in people's mind, relevant to the conversation.

Though the 'Additionally part, in which I speak, has more to do with my view of taking the Bible with salt, than allegory.
Not because the Bible is not true in parts, but because for many of us, we can't 'tell what is 'what, 'precisely, in truth, without spending years reading history books to try to gain context.

Though it 'also has to do with the allegory part, because of people's use of turns of phrase, break a leg, Idioms.
Topic's author
#164
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
You are absolutely correct. And that is why a pastor should study the original languages, cultural norms and idioms, types of literature within the Bible, and other such things. This allows him to overcome the barriers you mentioned in properly interpreting the text as the author meant to convey it. This includes being able to recognize when the text calls for something to be understood allegorically. If I told you I was going to use an analogy to try to make a point, that would be a clear evidence that you should interpret my next statement in an allegorical-type way, rather than a more literal way.

And while many people miss this purpose for weekly church gatherings, one of the main reasons to listen to sermons on Sunday is so that the pastor who has labored to rightly interpret the text can then explain it to the church members in a way they can understand. 
#165
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Discriminating against criminals would also be a crime then.
CRIMINALS ALSO HAVE INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS

How would a non-discriminating system work?
PROCRUSTEAN LAW