Why do some Christians become biblical literalists?

[Agnostic75]

And? We are talking about human evolution, not evolution in general. Whether or not tens of millions of Americans believe that humans were created pretty much in their present form, about 10,000 years ago, really doesn't tell us if they are Biblical literalists, their view on evolution in general, whether or not they believe in the flood, etc. It only tells us that they believe humans were created in their present form.

They could still believe in evolution otherwise though. Case in point, Catholics.

I would like to start over and try to get more into what I actually want to discuss. I request that a moderator change the title of this thread to 'Why do millions of American Christians accept certain Scriptures literally?'

Here is my revised opening post:

Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces millions of American Christians that one or more of those claims are literally true?

 

[Skwim]

I have checked out the link a number of times, as agnostic75 has posted it in a dozen threads so far. However, it simply is not the best survey. Since there is overlap here. There are a number of people who believe in Theistic evolution, yet also believe that God created human pretty much in his present form. So there is an overlap here. Also, the actual study didn't list whether one or not believed in theistic evolution, naturalistic evolution, or creationist view. That is something that the people at ReligiousTolerance.org did. The original questioning didn't list such.
Also, this survey only was in regards to human evolution. It wasn't in regard to evolution in general. So that also is going to effect the results. Looking at these results, it would be incorrect to say that 40% of Americans believe in creationism. Because the study did not show that, nor even intended to study such an idea. It was concerned only on human evolution, not evolution in general.

So you simply want to address stats from some other poll and not the one agnostic75 linked to. It's like asking, Which is better an apple or an orange? and you reply, "I like coconuts best."
Gotta wonder why you even bothered with his post.

 

[fallingblood]

So you simply want to address stats from some other poll and not the one agnostic75 linked to. It's like asking, Which is better an apple or an orange? and you reply, "I like coconuts best."
Gotta wonder why you even bothered with his post.

I addressed the stats from the poll agnostic75 linked to. However, I went to the actual source, which is Gallup. I looked at the questions they asked, and the results they posted. And simply, the argument he is making is not supported by those stats.

Now, I did answer his question in the OP, and also pointed out a flaw in the OP. He posted this poll to support his claim, and I showed how that poll simply doesn't.

 

[fallingblood]

I would like to start over and try to get more into what I actually want to discuss. I request that a moderator change the title of this thread to 'Why do millions of American Christians accept certain Scriptures literally?'

Here is my revised opening post:

Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces millions of American Christians that one or more of those claims are literally true?

There is no evidence. If they really were interested in the evidence, they wouldn't believe any of those, as the evidence doesn't support those ideas.

Why they claim those ideas are literally true is based more on faith, that is driven by desire. They want those ideas to be true, because if they aren't, then the foundation of their belief crumbles. Primarily because the foundation of their belief is a weak one. Which is why such beliefs are dwindling. However, old ideas die extremely hard.

Others believe those stories simply because they know no better. They were taught them when they were younger, and they just kept believing them. They don't debate them, they don't get into discussions that question them, they simply believe them because that is what they were taught when they were younger, and those ideas simply haven't been challenged.

Other's believe because for them, it doesn't matter. Most people don't have a vested interest in whether or not evolution occurred. It doesn't shake their faith, and they really just don't care. They would simply rather just hold onto an old story from their past for whatever reason.

Really, this is a simple question. You're pretty much asking why do people believe what they do. I mean, why do some atheists believe that all religious people must take the Bible literally, or that if God does exist, he must be this evil unforgiving monster? Why do some believe in Bigfoot? Why do something believe Obama is a Muslim? A lot of it has to do with a desire.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

For a literalist, fideism is the only recourse.

I have never understood the need to interpret literally save for the reduced need to think for yourself; surely there is nothing to suggest that the literalistic is superior to the metaphorical interpretation; the idea that the will of some entity inconceivably greater than a human can be comprehensively and accurately espoused within the confines of human language in such a way as to allow the intellectually limited contemporary human populace to understand is one that beggars belief.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is no evidence. If they really were interested in the evidence, they wouldn't believe any of those, as the evidence doesn't support those ideas.

Why they claim those ideas are literally true is based more on faith, that is driven by desire. They want those ideas to be true, because if they aren't, then the foundation of their belief crumbles. Primarily because the foundation of their belief is a weak one. Which is why such beliefs are dwindling. However, old ideas die extremely hard.

Others believe those stories simply because they know no better. They were taught them when they were younger, and they just kept believing them. They don't debate them, they don't get into discussions that question them, they simply believe them because that is what they were taught when they were younger, and those ideas simply haven't been challenged.

Other's believe because for them, it doesn't matter. Most people don't have a vested interest in whether or not evolution occurred. It doesn't shake their faith, and they really just don't care. They would simply rather just hold onto an old story from their past for whatever reason.

As the poll shows, gender is also an issue since the percentage of women who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true is much higher than the percentage of men who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. As a side note, women are much more likely to accept same-sex marriage than men are.

 

[fallingblood]

As the poll shows, gender is also an issue since the percentage of women who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true is much higher than the percentage of men who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. As a side note, women are much more likely to accept same-sex marriage than men are.

Wouldn't that suggest your OP is wrong then?

As you said: "In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige..."

So, if women are more likely to believe this story of Adam and Eve, yet are more likely to accept same-sex marriage, your claim in the OP doesn't seem to fit.

 

[Agnostic75]

Wouldn't that suggest your OP is wrong then?

As you said: "In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige..."

So, if women are more likely to believe this story of Adam and Eve, yet are more likely to accept same-sex marriage, your claim in the OP doesn't seem to fit.

I said "as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old." Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

If Christian women who support one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old, and I believe that that is the case, then the OP fits.

Even though Christian women are more likely to support same-sex marriage than Christian men are, it is reasonable to assume that 1) Christian women who accept one of more of those claims are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than Christian women who reject all of those claims, and that 2) only a relative handful of Christian women who accept all three of those claims support same-sex marriage.

In your opinion, why are women much more likely to accept creationism, and same-sex marriage than men are?

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. The board of directors strongly opposes homoesxuality, and so do the vast majority of Southern Baptist ministers. I assume that a sizeable majority of Southern Baptist women oppose same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic laymen are a mixed bag depending on the country. Spain, and Argentina, are predominantly Roman Catholic, and same-sex marraige is legal in both of those countries.

 

[Agnostic75]

Really, this is a simple question. You're pretty much asking why do people believe what they do.

A simple question, but often a complex answers that require a lot of research, research that sometimes does not provide adequate answers.

I mean, why do some atheists believe that all religious people must take the Bible literally, or that if God does exist, he must be this evil unforgiving monster? Why do some believe in Bigfoot? Why do something believe Obama is a Muslim? A lot of it has to do with a desire.

Millions, if not billions of people consider why people do what they do to be very important. Much history, and science is devoted to that issue. The more that we understand about why people do what they do, the better society will be.

It would be ridiculous for anyone to start a thread which discusses the motivations of all groups of people regarding all issues, so I do not have any idea why you mentioned atheists, bigfoot, etc. Since the U.S. is predominantly Christian, discussing the motivations of various groups of Christians is reasonable. Similarly, regarding discusssions about the Middle East, since the vast majority of people who live in the Middle East are Muslims, and the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, or Shiite, it would be reasonable to discuss the motivations of those groups of Muslims.

What are you primarily trying to accomplish at this forum? What do you want people to believe? Where do you want people to get their morals from?

 

[Agnostic75]

That 40% is somewhat misleading. Not only Biblical literalists would subscribe to the idea that humans were created, pretty much in his present form, 10,000 years ago. Many individuals who believe in theistic evolution also accept this idea. As in, they believe that evolution does occur, but God still created humans.

However you wish to categorize those 40% of Americans, that is a lot of people, and most of them at least partly used the Bible as a source for their belief that God created humans pretty much like they are about 10,000 years ago, and rejected the opinions of the vast majority of biologists and biochemists.

I do not have any polls on acceptance of the global flood, and the young earth, but I believe that tens of millions of Americans accept one, or both of those claims.

 

[fallingblood]

If Christian women who support one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old, and I believe that that is the case, then the OP fits.

That is a pretty big if. Especially since it is an assumption you haven't even supported.

Even though Christian women are more likely to support same-sex marriage than Christian men are, it is reasonable to assume that 1) Christian women who accept one of more of those claims are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than Christian women who reject all of those claims, and that 2) only a relative handful of Christian women who accept all three of those claims support same-sex marriage.

It is not reasonable to assume any of that. As they don't even relate to each other.

In your opinion, why are women much more likely to accept creationism, and same-sex marriage than men are?

Maybe because of the education that women get. There has been a long standing myth that women don't do good in science, and thus women are encouraged to stray away from education in science.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. The board of directors strongly opposes homoesxuality, and so do the vast majority of Southern Baptist ministers. I assume that a sizeable majority of Southern Baptist women oppose same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic laymen are a mixed bag depending on the country. Spain, and Argentina, are predominantly Roman Catholic, and same-sex marraige is legal in both of those countries.

You assume way too much.

The official stance, for Catholicism, on homosexuality, is that it is a sin and should not be supported. On the other hand, their official stance on evolution is that it exists. Go figure.

Also, Baptist churches are largely autonomous. So what the board of directors state is not necessarily what each autonomous congregation teaches.

Most of your argument here is based on nothing more than assumptions.

 

[fallingblood]

However you wish to categorize those 40% of Americans, that is a lot of people, and most of them at least partly used the Bible as a source for their belief that God created humans pretty much like they are about 10,000 years ago, and rejected the opinions of the vast majority of biologists and biochemists.

I do not have any polls on acceptance of the global flood, and the young earth, but I believe that tens of millions of Americans accept one, or both of those claims.

The bolded part really is what you have. A belief.

 

[Agnostic75]

However you wish to categorize those 40% of Americans, that is a lot of people, and most of them at least partly used the Bible as a source for their belief that God created humans pretty much like they are about 10,000 years ago, and rejected the opinions of the vast majority of biologists and biochemists.

I do not have any polls on acceptance of the global flood, and the young earth, but I believe that tens of millions of Americans accept one, or both of those claims.

The bolded part really is what you have. A belief.

Consider the following claims.

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is 15,000 years or less old.

Many millions of Americans accept one or more of those claims. I started this thread primarily in order for people to discuss reasons why that is the case.

Would you agree with me that Christians, both men, and women, who accept any two, or all three of those claims are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than Christians who reject all three of those claims?

At http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/united_states.htm, there is a website that lists some gay friendly churches in each state. I have not yet had time to look at all of the information, but I assume that you will find very few, if any Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God, or Mormon churches listed.

 

[fallingblood]

Consider the following claims.

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is 15,000 years or less old.

Many millions of Americans accept one or more of those claims. I started this thread primarily in order for people to discuss reasons why that is the case.

Would you agree with me that Christians, both men, and women, who accept any two, or all three of those claims are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than Christians who reject all three of those claims?

At http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/united_states.htm, there is a website that lists some gay friendly churches in each state. I have not yet had time to look at all of the information, but I assume that you will find very few, if any Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God, or Mormon churches listed.

Repeating yourself isn't going to make your case stronger.

And I wouldn't agree with your assumption. If there was a difference between those who accept those 3 claims you made, and those who don't, when concerning homosexuality, I would figure it was probably of very little difference. Again, the Catholic Church is a great example of this. There official stance on homosexuality is that it is wrong. When it comes to evolution, the flood, etc, they see them as myths.

Also, for the link you provided, just looking at Alabama, I saw a couple of Baptist churches and even a Roman Catholic church. Which goes to show you that one can't make too broad of generalizations here. There are even a number of evangelical churches on the lists.

 

[Agnostic75]

Also, for the link you provided, just looking at Alabama, I saw a couple of Baptist churches and even a Roman Catholic church. Which goes to show you that one can't make too broad of generalizations here. There are even a number of evangelical churches on the lists.

But probably not any Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, or Mormon churches, possibly not in any state on those lists.

It is well-known that certain religious groups of people generally oppose homosexuality far more than other religious groups of people do.

How likely would it be to find a Christian inerrantist who approves of homosexuality?

Do you know of any Southern Baptist churches that allow openly homosexual people to join the church?

 

[fallingblood]

But probably not any Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, or Mormon churches, possibly not in any state on those lists.

Did you check? More so, that is not a complete list.

It is well-known that certain religious groups of people generally oppose homosexuality far more than other religious groups of people do.

Yes, but many of those groups also don't take a literalist approach. So your point really falls flat.

How likely would it be to find a Christian inerrantist who approves of homosexuality?

Probably as likely as it would be to find a Christian errantist (if that is even a term) who approves of homosexuality. Again, look at the Catholic Church.

Do you know of any Southern Baptist churches that allow openly homosexual people to join the church?

I haven't spent much time around Southern Baptist churches, and without asking each one personally, I couldn't say, as they are autonomous congregations.

I can tell you that I know of one Assemblies of Gods church that accepted openly homosexual people to join. It was hate the sin, love the sinner type of mentality.

 

[connermt]

- lack of proper education
- lack of protection of children from indoctrination (by their parents)
- lack of intelligence and critical thinking
- flooding of the public space by religious messages
- mental health problems

Agreed.
I would add laziness and 'because I want it to be true' to that list.
From my experience, it's easier for some to sit back and let others tell them what to think. This happens with intelligent people and critical thinkers as well (though maybe less frequently).