TSR Christian Society

Hmm, I'm a bit so-so with mine. College people are lovely (a lot of them are friends from chapel), although they're sometimes a bit too conservative for me, so I don't go that often. And I've never been to any of the uni-wide stuff...

It all differs so much according to the individuals in each gathering, I think!

Evangelicalism is based on a "high view" of Scripture, an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an emphasis on personal conversion, and an emphasis on evangelism (note that this is only a part of evangelicalism). And although I personally am an evangelical, I definitely don't think you have to subscribe to those to be a Christian!

I wouldn't say that that is particular to evangelicalism, to be honest.

Also, it is undoubtedly more concerned with conversion in general, but is that all you meant by "personal conversion"? What's so impersonal about other traditions' attitudes towards conversion?

(Edit: Btw, this post appears more combative than I meant it to be! I'm just having an allergic reaction to the gorgeous cat that hangs around college at the moment ... woe.)

Lol it's not that those four things are exclusive to evangelicalism, just that they, put together, are sufficient for evangelicalism, and are individually necessary for it. I'd be quite surprised if there were a group of people who believed in all those four things, and if no one else believed in any of them at all!

P.S. Get well soon

Fair 'nuff! And thanks. : )

Just had a really interesting tute on Intelligent Design. Bearing in mind that this soc is all about building each other up and learning from each other, what do you guys think of it? (I'm just curious to see what views are like in this reasonably varied group!)

It depends how it's defined - it's often really misrepresented. I don't find the biological stuff to do with Intelligent Design convincing (e.g. Behe), but if you allow a broader definition (e.g. including fine tuning) then I think it's reasonably persuasive.

Yeah, Intelligent Design as a movement is something that's associated with the "science" put forward by people like Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc - so, things like irreducible complexity and the cambrian explosion - rather than with general thoughts about an intelligent designer, I think. As far as I'm aware, fine tuning is usually thought of as something quite separate.

*subs*

*subs*

I agree, the literature can be quite ambiguous. Particularly since e.g. Dembski and Behe, though often focussing on the biological stuff (particularly Behe), both often rely on fine tuning - Dembski's chapter in "God and Design" (http://www.amazon.com/God-Design-Teleological-Argument-Science/dp/0415263441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306583512&sr=8-1 - definitely recommended, has contributions from Behe, Robin Collins, Conway Morris, Craig, Paul Davies, Dembski, John Leslie, Tim McGrew, DH Mellor, Ken Miller, Martin Rees, Michael Ruse, Swinburne, van Inwagen... i.e. everyone), for example, is dedicated primarily to fine tuning. I find most of the discussion around it too caricaturistic, if I'm honest. It's not creationism (many ID proponents are evolutionists, even the biological ID proponents), and it can be said to have some ignored force in some respects. Though I'm personally unconvinced of the biological stuff, I think people are usually unfair in their representation and analysis of it.

- I'm a Christian, honest. Ask GEG

I think we're going to need a video of your baptism to confirm...

I don't remember getting a confirmation certificate



Greetings from Boston USA btw, everyone

Doesn't that depend on how you define creationism? Certainly, it's not Young Earth Creationism, but if we consider creationism to be the assertion of a religious doctrine of creation as a priority over the (necessarily) methodologically naturalistic assumptions of science, then it undeniably is...? I don't mind musing over the concept of an intelligent designer as a theological reflection, but I do think it's a bit underhanded of most of the main ID proponents to put forward the theory as an unbiased scientific attempt - quite apart from the fact that the biological stuff is unconvincing, as you said, a more fundamental issue is surely that it presents gaps in scientific theories as evidence for an empirically unverifiable designer when such gaps are filled all the time (so, entirely missing the point of scientific endeavour).

Either way, I assume the lack of responses in this thread (other than yours ) implies that it hasn't made as much of an impact over here as it has done in the States.

Fine tuning sounds interesting, though, because it does seem to be different. It's not looking at supposed faults in the current scientific understanding, as far as I'm aware, but considering the implications of such an understanding. Shall have a look at that book. : )

Yeah, Intelligent Design as a movement is something that's associated with the "science" put forward by people like Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc - so, things like irreducible complexity and the cambrian explosion - rather than with general thoughts about an intelligent designer, I think. As far as I'm aware, fine tuning is usually thought of as something quite separate.

Sure; I meant more the politically charged, pejorative 'creationism'
The 'scientific' aspect is ambiguous, too - I think it depends a lot on how one understands science. If one restricts 'science' to regularities within the universe, then the biological arguments are extra-scientific in that they seem to propose that normal scientific regularities cannot account for life; yet they still present life as an observation which constitutes a posteriori evidence for a designer, so if one includes all evidence-based thinking in science, then it could be argued that it's scientific. That said, if one includes all evidentialism in science, one would have to include half of the philosophy of religion, which would be really weird. So I'm going for the former definition.