Is there a difference between creationist and religious people?

[Marshalscienceguy]

I have noticed something. Many Christians in fact believe in science, biology, and evolution. Yet still believe that there is god, hell and heaven. We also have those who claim to be creationists and they usually go around saying that evolution is a lie, science is a lie, that the mountains and the animals appeared out of thin air. Some people believe God created the big bang but not that evolution and everything else is false. So is there a difference between being religious and being a creationist? Does being Christian or religious make you automatically a creationist? Even in most arguments people assume that if you have a religion you do not believe in science but that is not really always true.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think the proportion of fundamentalist Christians would vary depending on where you are in the world. In Western Europe for example, I suspect most Christians are comfortable with evolution and other such teachings of science (or these are my vague recollections of the statistics). The southern states of the US would likely be a different story. In any event, the black and white answer to your question is that of course one may be a theist and not a creationist; this is indeed true for a great many people.

[ajb]

So is there a difference between being religious and being a creationist? Does being Christian or religious make you automatically a creationist?

This must depend on who you define a creationist. Don't most religions have some kind of creation myth? It people believe one of these myths then aren't they a creationist? Or does creationist really just mean anti-evolutionist?

 

 

 

Even in most arguments people assume that if you have a religion you do not believe in science but that is not really always true.

People say that the big bang was how God created the Universe and that evolution is how God created us. So, one can to a point believe in God and science, but I wonder if that is strictly true. I mean, we know how the Earth orbits the Sun, in accordance to our theories of gravity, but couldn't God if he wished change our orbit thus breaking the laws of physics?

[Endercreeper01]

All creationists are religious, but not all religious people are creationists.

Your question depends on the meaning of creaionists.

[swansont]

Not all religious folks believe that the Bible is literally true, and literally true in its entirety. Those that do tend to be the creationists.

[SlavicWolf]

Does anyone know why biblical literalism is pretty much a US-only phenomenon? it originated in the US and in my country the only organisations peddling it are offshoots of American groups. The Catholics don't have it, nor Eastern Orthodox, not even Luterans... And the earliest interpretation fo the Old Testament, written before Jesus was born did NOT adhere to a literal interpretation. Among Catholic Church Fathers only one had an interpretation that was somewhat literal.

[StringJunky]

ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:ajb, on 10 Jan 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

People say that the big bang was how God created the Universe and that evolution is how God created us. So, one can to a point believe in God and science, but I wonder if that is strictly true. I mean, we know how the Earth orbits the Sun, in accordance to our theories of gravity, but couldn't God if he wished change our orbit thus breaking the laws of physics?

One could be religious but not submit to a prescribed religion, along with its incumbent diktats, thus allowing open acceptance of scientific ideas with no conflicts. God could have assigned specific properties to the most fundamental units of the universe and let chance, mixed in with the determinism inherent in the properties of the fundamental elements, do the rest. Your suggestion assumes God wants to meddle in the machinations of his creation at a later date when that may not be his intent at all ...that would be a possible non sequitur as an argument against it.

Edited January 11, 2014 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Does anyone know why biblical literalism is pretty much a US-only phenomenon?

It's not.

[Alan McDougall]

I think the proportion of fundamentalist Christians would vary depending on where you are in the world. In Western Europe for example, I suspect most Christians are comfortable with evolution and other such teachings of science (or these are my vague recollections of the statistics). The southern states of the US would likely be a different story. In any event, the black and white answer to your question is that of course one may be a theist and not a creationist; this is indeed true for a great many people.

 

You are right you simply can't box Christians into one generalized belief system, most Christians, at least the ones that can think further than the tip of their noses accept evolution, with a few reservations, example evolution happens while God looks on because the world is his sort of ant farm, meaning he has concern for it development ans safety, Their any many scientist who believe in God, but believe in Physics etc also. To many God is simply a great mathematician , I like that idea myself been a theist.

Does anyone know why biblical literalism is pretty much a US-only phenomenon? it originated in the US and in my country the only organisations peddling it are offshoots of American groups. The Catholics don't have it, nor Eastern Orthodox, not even Luterans... And the earliest interpretation fo the Old Testament, written before Jesus was born did NOT adhere to a literal interpretation. Among Catholic Church Fathers only one had an interpretation that was somewhat literal.

 

Bible literalism is most definitely not just confined to the USA it is rampant in Africa for example, my best friends who are very intelligent quickly get stupid, when I try to convince them the universe could not possible have been created in just 6 literal days or get them away from the ridiculous belief that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, it is like trying to have a logical debate with a lamp post.

This must depend on who you define a creationist. Don't most religions have some kind of creation myth? It people believe one of these myths then aren't they a creationist? Or does creationist really just mean anti-evolutionist?

 

 

 

 

People say that the big bang was how God created the Universe and that evolution is how God created us. So, one can to a point believe in God and science, but I wonder if that is strictly true. I mean, we know how the Earth orbits the Sun, in accordance to our theories of gravity, but couldn't God if he wished change our orbit thus breaking the laws of physics?

 

God could not brake his own rules, because if he were to do that it would lead to a cosmic disaster. Mathematical rules are immutable.

[Delta1212]

One could be religious but not submit to a prescribed religion, along with its incumbent diktats, thus allowing open acceptance of scientific ideas with no conflicts. God could have assigned specific properties to the most fundamental units of the universe and let chance, mixed in with the determinism inherent in the properties of the fundamental elements, do the rest. Your suggestion assumes God wants to meddle in the machinations of his creation at a later date when that may not be his intent at all ...that would be a possible non sequitur as an argument against it.

It's also possible that he could meddle if he wanted to, or even that he did or does meddle, without that fact invalidating science. I could program a simulation and watch it play out, but leave myself an input to change things as they progress. The rules the simulation follows when I'm not messing around with it would still be the rules, and it's entirely possible that someone watching the behavior of the simulation in order to determine the rules would never notice my little edits if they were subtle or infrequent enough.

[Alan McDougall]

 

You are right you simply can't box Christians into one generalized belief system, most Christians, at least the ones that can think further than the tip of their noses accept evolution, with a few reservations, example evolution happens while God looks on because the world is his sort of ant farm, meaning he has concern for it development ants safety, Their any many scientist who believe in God, but believe in Physics etc also. To many God is simply a great mathematician , I like that idea myself been a theist.

 

 

 

Alan McDougall, on 14 Jan 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

 

This is the only way I could find to go back and correct my embarrassing errors in the post above, the South African time zone if very different to the USA and sometimes I am up late and don't check carefully what I have written.

 

You are right you simply can't box Christians into one generalized belief system, most Christians, at least the ones that can think further than the tip of their noses accept evolution, with a few reservations, example evolution happens while God looks on because the world is his sort of ant farm, meaning he has concern for it development ants safety, Their any many scientist who believe in God, but believe in Physics etc also. To many God is simply a great mathematician , I like that idea myself been a theist.

 

Bible literalism is most definitely not just confined to the USA it is rampant in Africa for example, my best friends who are very intelligent quickly get stupid, when I try to convince them the universe could not possible have been created in just 6 literal days or get them away from the ridiculous belief that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, it is like trying to have a logical debate with a lamp post.

 

God could not brake (Break) his own rules, because if he were to do that it would lead to a cosmic disaster. Mathematical rules are immutable.