In the previous post (On a Beach Walk: No. 12), I presented a continuum. No matter the topic, a continuum tries to categorize in order to show relationships. Positions are difficult because overlap exists between adjacent groups and each group can be subdivided into more specific smaller groups.
The continuum below is an attempt to show relationship around the topic of science and theology regarding evolution. It’s not perfect, but it illustrates different positions people hold, so it also stimulates thinking and serves as a point of discussion.
Defining each group is another important aspect. Although each definition below is far from complete, they provide a sense for each group’s position. On the other hand, representing all positions would be difficult.
Strong atheist: Lack the belief in any god and are fervently against religion.
Passive atheist: Lack the belief in any god, but are less antagonistic to religion – possibly tolerant.
Agnostic: A broad group including (but not limited to)
- Those who don’t believe in any god because we cannot prove a deity’s existence or non-existence.
- Those who simply don’t know about any god or don’t care to know.
Spiritual naturalist: A broad group including (but not limited to) two broad groups: religious naturalists and humanists – neither believing in a god or gods.
- Religious naturalists see the meaning of life through the beauty and complexity of the natural world.
- Humanists embrace reason and logic in order to emphasize a moral and ethical code for doing good in human society.
Spiritual non-theist: Religions that are spiritual, but without believing in a god or gods; such as Buddhists, Hindus, and others
Deist: God who is not linked to any religion is the creator, but does not intervene and is not personal because God has left the world. There are different types of Deists.
Theistic evolutionist: God is the creator. Scripture and nature in a collective relationship. A range of theistic evolutionist exist.
Progressive Creationists: God is the creator and the earth is very old. Two groups include
- God created many species from which others evolved through mutation and selection
- Intelligent Design: God creatively intervenes over time when necessary.
Young-Earth creationist: God is the creator, Earth is young, and a literal Genesis in today’s language explains creation.
A Frank Angle 
This is a super map. I can see me with a glass of Malbec at a cocktail party saying, “So you sound like a theistic evolutionist. Are you?” 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
John,
LOL … oh yes … that’s a great line. Maybe we should consider making cocktail napkins displaying this map. 🙂
Going back to the beach walk. Can you hear the two extremes yelling at each other and each of them trying to persuade all the others?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can hear them yelling now. I like the napkin idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One would think it would be a sure winner on Amazon.
LikeLike
Great stuff here, Frank. I think your continuum presents things well. Now, if we can all be respectful of others no matter where they fall on the continuum, this would be a better world.
By the way, I was SO happy to see Jordan win DWTS. He really was amazing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carrie,
Thanks for the kind words. You have been around here long enough to know that I post about information between the extremes. This idea came to me earlier this year – so I’ve been holding it back for this post as a follow-up to the previous beach walk.
Jordan and Lindsay were awesome. I was worried that the fans would screw it up! Nonetheless, a great season.
LikeLike
Your pragmatism always appeals to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you … 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cool chart, Frank. I like the cocktail napkin idea. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Merril,
Thanks for the support on the napkin idea. I can’t imagine the discussions. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉
LikeLike
I like the chart. I’m not sure where I’d fall on it, but I like it. I also think the cocktail napkin idea is brilliant. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Oh no … another napkin idea supporter! 😉 I don’t think you would be alone in terms of people having a difficult time trying to identify themselves within this graphic.
LikeLike
Religious belief is indeed a continuum in the population. I’m wondering therefore about the utility of labels in this case. Labels define boundaries and imply a static condition, do they not?
If I were so challenged, I can see applying several different labels to myself depending on circumstances. “A drowning man will clutch at a straw.” “There are no atheists in foxholes.” Seems like a cop-out, I know, but it’s real. Religiosity is a part of most people and must have had survival value in our species’ evolution.
Interesting post, Frank.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim,
One could use a Venn Diagram to also show relationships. I chose this method not as one with defined boundaries, but as positions relative to other positions. Although there is gray area, it shows that there are more than just the two choices at the ends.
LikeLike
Interesting idea, to use a Venn diagram showing degrees of religiosity in the world populations. Even better would be to show trends, but the data aren’t accessible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Venn would be interesting to do – but also a challenge – well, at least to get it somewhat accurate. I’m not sure the extremes have anything in common.
LikeLike
If the data were available, I predict the trend in the U.S. and Europe would be toward the agnostic. I’m in the dark as to the rest of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is no doubt in my mind that unaffiliated is growing in the US and in Europe – then again, that doesn’t automatically mean agnostic or atheist. Maybe more spiritual naturalists, spiritual non-theists, and Deists. Just a guess on my part.
Here are two articles from Pew Research that may help you. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/ …. http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most interesting, Frank. I am not sure where I fall on the continuum either… and I, too, love the napkin idea. Say…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale,
Oh no … another napkin supporter … and now one with catering in her blood! 😉 If the continuum stimulates thought, that’s a good thing. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh yes!
And it does 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad you followed up Beach Walk No. 12 with today’s post which defines the categories of the Spiritual Continuum. Combining elements from levels 7&8, I’m a person who believes that God is the creator, that the earth is very old, that God created many species from which others evolved through mutation and selection, that scripture and nature are in a collective relationship, and that God creatively intervenes over time when necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim,
The past two posts was my plan all along. To my surprise, I didn’t receive any questions about definitions on the beach walk post … but that’s OK.
Meanwhile, because you declared your position, you are NOT in the #8 category (Progressive Creationist) because I know you don’t support the Intelligent Design movement … well … at least I don’t think you are.
LikeLike
You are correct that I am a #7, but I’m OK with borrowing good ideas from any of the others as long as they do no harm. JSYK my wife had a good time reading your post and immediately declared herself a yellow in order to (1) position herself a minimum of two levels to the left of me, and (2) carry on her family’s tradition of eliciting howls and accusations of “two-by-four” religious thinking, while at the same time receiving high-fives from her father for anyone willing to remain true to Emerson’s “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” (Her dad had a predilection for leaving out the first two words of the quote.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“No harm” by the ID people would be debatable … and biology texts don’t contain ID information. Regarding Mrs. Marching Band, “non-theist” and her high-fiving don’t seem to go together.
LikeLike
Why stop at napkins? Your chart would make a great poster – used for progressive schools, churches, adult ed programs, on and on. Cocktail napkins are really enticing, too. 🙂
Are you sure you’re not a cousin of Dan Brown’s? If he’d known about your chart, I think he would have had “Winston” use it in the book ORIGINS. You’ll know what I mean when you read it.
And lastly, I like your chart indeed. Still mulling over where I fit in…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pam,
You are too kind. I’ve got the feeling it would have fit into the recent discussion you had.
BTW – mentioning Dan Brown. At one of those “I write like ___” places that analyzes writing, Dan Brown came up for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SEEEEEE??? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person