Jump to content

Talk:Evangelicalism in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pseudoscience

[edit]

I think the inclusion of "pseudoscience" to describe alternative theories to evolution is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We need to give both sides the best arguments they advance and not arrive at conclusion statements of fact without proper citations to an actual scientific consensus. Evolution is a majority stance in the scientific community, but NPOV necessitates a fair hearing of the minority views. Cyberpunkas (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Scientific consensus Cyberpunkas (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you quoted is actually opposed to your edits. Patent pseudoscience is described as pseudoscience and the scientific consensus in biology is that creationism is pseudoscience (in so far as it pretends to be science). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."<ref>[[#National Academy of Sciences 1999|National Academy of Sciences 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25 p. 25]</ref>

— Intelligent design
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not science though. Sorry you don't like that it's not really science.
The primary source provided was poor, and over at WP:RSN, it has been excluded and the subject of a bot to remove links to the site in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is solved by removing the word "pseudoscientific" from the paranthetic. I have done so. As noted, the position is not testable by scientific methods and therefore is neither science nor even pseudoscience. It is simply a position/belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:CB:4:1010:0:0:0:C3D5 (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand: theological creationism is ok, even if it isn't science. Science has nothing for or against "God created the Universe/multiverse". But scientific creationism and intelligent design are pseudoscience, since they contradict the paradigm of biology, namely that evolution theory has been objectively verified beyond any reasonable doubt. So, creationism has two meanings: theological creationism isn't pseudoscience, it is just theology. But creationism, in as far as it pretends to be science, based on science or confirmed by science, could only amount to pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To put it simply, "science proves that God exists" is WP:CB. "Science proves that God does not exist" is also WP:CB. God is not a scientific study object. Science cannot know which god exists, if any. Science is therefore agnostic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth creationism

[edit]

An uncited part of the article connects Evangelicalism to Young Earth creationism. However the article on YE creationism lists among the organizations who support this only the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They are relatively small organizations and may not represent Evangelicalism as a whole. The rest of the list involves non-Evangelical Lutherans, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists.

Is the connection between Evangelicalism and YE creationism strong enough to be included here or is this is a general issue with some strands of Protestantism? Are there any reliable sources that confirm the connection? Or is this original research?

The entire "Recurrent themes" section currently seems to lack citations to reliable sources, but I am puzzled why a controversial claim seems to have nothing to back it up. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some facets of Evangelicalism doe support it, yes. Many do so unofficially. If you feel it needs references, tag the section and remove anything you feel should be removed per WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section has been tagged with a need for citations since June. I am more concerned that this violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons by connecting a still extant religious group and its adherents to a fringe anti-science movement. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIASED WIKI AGAIN

[edit]

5 lines about the Christian Right and 15 lines about the Christian Left. Wiki supposed to be objective, yet the Left has a 3 time larger section than the Right. balance, someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication of how this supposed bias was introduced? Are you suggesting a cabal or a conspiracy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctives

[edit]

It seems to me that what really distinguishes evangelicalism from other branches Christianity these days is three things: Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Inerrancy. There is a lot of talk about other things, but I think it really comes down to these three things. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are discussed in the article, but as the article states, there are different "factions" we might say within the evangelical movement and they all have their own theological concerns. Ltwin (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The TERM 'Evangelical' has been used distinctly by others who do NOT agree with these three Reformation distinctives. Consider Karl Barth's Evangelical Theology: An Introduction.
  • Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963.
  • Evangelical Theology, American lectures 1962 – given by Barth in Chicago, Illinois and Princeton, New Jersey, ISBN 978-0-9785738-0-5 and ISBN 0-9785738-0-3

The Wikipedia article on Karl Barth says:

"Karl Barth's most significant theological work is his summa theology titled the Church Dogmatics, which contains Barth's doctrine of the word of God, doctrine of God, doctrine of reconciliation and doctrine of redemption. Barth is most well known for reorienting all theological discussion around Jesus." (not around the epistemological status of the Bible). That may be a problem (and often argument SAYS that Barth's position is problematic), but scholarship can better assess what is being said by a leader who used that term for his own thinking.MaynardClark (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term evangelical is used by many groups. However, the subject of this article is US evangelical Protestantism (often what is called Neo-Evangelicalism), which is a broad, yet specific movement. Karl Barth would more accurately be described as Neo-Orthodox, I think. While he definitely shared a lot in common with the Neo-Evangelicals and both rejected liberal theology, I don't think Barth would quite fit in with this grouping. Ltwin (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be argumentative, but rather just engage in some intellectual discussion aiming toward improving the article. My gut feel is that the article should hit strongest on the three beliefs sola fide, sola scriptura, and biblical inerrancy. First of all, I know that there can be many definitions of evangelicalism, but I think what makes the most sense is the meaning of evangelicalism that the American media uses. This is evangelicalism characterized by media outlets such at Christianity Today and The Christian Post, and colleges such as Wheaton College (Illinois), Liberty University, and other colleges in the Christian College Consortium. The two Sola's and Inerrancy are really much more at the heart of this common language "evangelicalism" than many of the other topics in the article, like evolution, abortion, secularism, and Christian nation. As for evolution, the deniers have to choose either Old Earth or Young Earth. A Young Earth belief makes it very difficult for any of the evangelical colleges to teach biology with any integrity, so evangelical beliefs in this area are becoming somewhat fuzzy recently. Old Earth is hard to reconcile with biblical inerrancy. Abortion is opposed by many non-evangelical denominations, most notably many Catholics, so this is not really distinctive of evangelicalism per se. Secularism is actually a hot debate within evangelicalism itself. Many evangelicals feel that separating church and state is really in their best long-term interests. They fear a day when the Nones control the government, and ecumenical faith is force-fed in public schools. Christian Nation is similar. There is a strong vein of US evangelicalism that wants nothing to do with the government, because they fear that government favoritism of evangelicalism now could easily swing to government persecution of evangelicalism in the future. All in all, I think the article should focus on the two Sola's and biblical inerrancy, rather than these other extraneous topics. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse

[edit]

Articles about other churches have covered the problems they have with organizational sexual abuse - I propose that this one needs the same. Perhaps start with the #churchtoo movement (the evangelical parallel to #metoo), go on to Rachael Denhollander, exclusion and bigotry of LGBTQI+ people, through to Mike Cosper's chronicling abuse in the Mars Hill megachurch. A couple of refs to start with:

Before I launch into this - any comments for or against?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: to your question:
  • Do you have a section/sub-section structure in mind to organize the content you wish to add, or do you plan on starting out by adding a couple of paragraphs to start, and then organically split and re-org as you expand?
  • I was previously aware of a couple of articles on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, partly due to a lot of high profile reporting on it. Searching around, I can see that there are a few others, including some articles focusing on Jewish, Baptist, Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness cases. (Wikipedia's advanced search does a poor job of finding them; try this Google search instead.) Your additions here could be a stepping stone to a new parent article on Sexual abuse in organized religion, which seems very much like a topic that we should cover, and is without question a notable topic.
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Mathglot: I have not given much thought to the structure. At first I thought it might fit under the heading "Politics and social issues" (perhaps re-worded) but it isn't a really good fit there so I it would probably need a separate section. The more I look into it, the more daunted I am by the size of this; it could be a lifetime obsession. So I would take your suggestion of adding a couple of paragraphs to start, and then growing organically. But honestly, I would hope that others who have a better understanding would run with it from there - I have no association with the church or the country so I'm starting from scratch. I do love your idea of eventually having a new article on Sexual abuse in organized religion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

evangelism 105.112.177.88 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangelicalism_in_the_United_States&oldid=1227630612"