|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pastoral Implications of YEC etc.
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I'm not scientifically minded (despite A level Physics) and have always been disinterested in people arguing about Creation vs Evolution because both sides have seemed rather arrogant and unpleasant.
It would seem that most shipmates with a scientific background find YEC beliefs to be very bad science (almost anti-science, is this fair?). And, from what I've come across, a bit dodgy exegetically.
I heard a creationist talk/sermon recently and was struck by the "we're standing on the Bible" rhetoric, with the obvious implication that those of "other views" weren't. This seems to me to be a case of canonising one's own interpretation of Scripture.
What happens to this persons faith if they come a bit unstuck on, say for example, deciding what kind of creature Archaeopteryx was or the accuracy of carbon dating etc etc?
Should I worry about the spirituality of YECer's I know or is it really adaphoria?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Good question, Twangist. The senior pastor of my church speaks of an analogy (not his own, I think) of faith as either a wall or a trampoline. Take one brick away from a wall and you might severely comprise the wall-ness; take a spring out of a trampoline and it will still work (almost) as well.
Faith that requires a certain interpretation of Biblical passages is like the wall, and faith that is more accepting of mystery and uncertainty is like the trampoline. The "We're standing on the Bible" approach can, I think, lead to people losing their faith when they get that jolt of cognitive dissonance from realising that YEC completely flies in the face of all scientific knowledge.
It also ties in with an approach to the Bible that Brian McLaren describes as treating it like a legal textbook, meaning that if the Bible says something then we have to believe it is literally true. Instead, he says the Bible is a (God-inspired) library that gives us a unique insight into what the people of God and God himself are like. It's from his book A New Kind of Christianity - I wrote more here but read the book if you get a chance and are interested. I thought it was fantastic and it's really opened my eyes to a different way of reading the Bible that still treats it as the inspired Word of God but solves some of those awkward problems like the creation story (and maybe also the references to genocide, taking pleasure in murdering Babylonian children etc.).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There's a man I know in folk club circles who is a YEC, and sings an anti-Darwin song he has written. About the third time, I felt it was time to state an opposing view. (I have also suggested his argument would be stronger if he did not refer to "only a theory" or Piltdown as part of it, but he has not modified it.) In discussion it became clear that he has been taught that if Genesis is rejected, since Jesus referred to it, then what Jesus said in any context has to be doubted, and indeed the whole New Testament fails. There is no grounding for faith. Because of the sort of man he is, one who appears to have personal experience of God, I think he would find that his wall is a trampoline after all, but he persists in believing otherwise. I believe he has been taught because I have met the argument elsewhere. I think that to teach this fear is the very opposite of what a pastor should be doing, but the wall is around him, and cannot be shaken by me.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
You could just get up after him and sing Chris Smither's "Origin of Species."
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
It would seem that most shipmates with a scientific background find YEC beliefs to be very bad science (almost anti-science, is this fair?).
Its not very bad science, its not science at all. It is bad theology. Much of it is lies.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
YECcies must ignore not only fossils and carbon dating. How do they answer astronomical evidence about the age of the universe? Calvin, who commended astronomers, admired their laboriousness, and chided their detractors for laziness, must be rolling in his grave to see what has become of some of his followers.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I once mentioned carbon dating on a YEC thread somewhere and got a sarcastic remark that didn't I know that carbon dating depended on the length of the organic material's exposure to sunlight, therefore with all the variations that involved that meant that carbon dating was completely unreliable? Anyone ever hear variations on that one?
The impression I get with YECers and science is that they expect their science to be as simple and fairytale like as the Genesis story. I think they see the complexities of science including dating as "weaseling". It just isn't "plain reading" like the Bible thus is a matter of mental razzle-dazzle being pulled on God's faithful.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
This is no longer an issue for me: but there was a time when it challenged my faith to the core. If my faith had been primarily intellectual I would have chucked it in then - somewhat surprisingly I now associate the phrase in my life when my ideas & understanding changed as 'being transformed by the renewing of my mind: but yes, I do think insisting that only one way of reading the bible can damaging to faith
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Thanks for that link - it isn't quite me, though. I have been trying to do something with Charles Dawson (of innumerable fakes) to suggest that because a lie is told about something doesn't make the thing itself false. But it won't gel.
BTW, carbon dating only goes back a short way, and to get into deep time you need potassium-argon, or uranium-lead, things with longer half lives.
And when I went to remind myself just which isotopes were concerned, and googled radiometric dating, high up the drop down possibilities were "a Christian perspective", "flaws", and "problems". Worrying.
I know from the singer that people spend ages poking around for any answer that will mean they don't have to take any notice of the science.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Thanks guys - food for thought.
Would you say (as far as you can tell) that there is willfull ignorance or even concious deception being practiced by some YEC advocates?
The folks who run "ministries" claim some kind of scientific credentials (soem even not from diploma mills)
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've not met many YEC advocates. But those I've met properly (ie: had a chance for a decent talk, rather than just sitting in a room listening to them talk) have been reasonably well informed about what science says, and intelligent. It's just that, like the vast majority of people I know who accept YEC, their convinced that their faith needs the foundation of an inerrant Bible. This, in their thinking strengthens any argument that appears to support Creationism and weakens any argument that appears to undermine it.
I've never experienced anything that remotely approaches conscious deception, or willful ignorance. Yes, some ignorance (who of us isn't ignorant about something? I admit to being ignorant of lots of the latest Creation Research). Generally a willingness to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. But, a definite unwillingness to shift their sense of authority from an Inerrant reading of Scripture to anything else ... and hence a definite sense of "the Bible says" trumping any argument.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
There's an excellent essay relevant to this topic by the Vicar of Blackburn, Michael Roberts, with regards to Creationism and education
Everyday Champions - of what? (Should schools teach creationism?
From 1968 to 1971 I worked as an exploration geologist in Uganda and South Africa. In the course of my work I mapped several thousand square miles of Precambrian rocks. I returned to train for the Anglican ministry and ...went to study under Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the Religious right. I was advised to bring together my science and faith by reading several creationists books and began with The Genesis Flood. It was a harrowing experience as it seemed to demolish all the geology I had ever learnt. It was carefully argued and presented. However when I came to the sections on the geological column and radiometric age dating, all fell into place. A I had recently mapped a large area of strata and had set up a local geological column... I was appalled at the level of misrepresentation and misquotation. A few years before I had been taught about radiometric age-dating by some of the leading exponents... I was familiar with the techniques used then. Again I was appalled both at the level of misunderstanding and misquotation.
Personally I found it traumatic as I had greatly valued Schaeffer’s work and he had broadened my horizons, but here he was recommending writings which I found less than honest. After that I read all the creationist books and found the same level of misrepresentation. Fortunately I was helped by an American Baptist (now a Southern Baptist minister and a great friend) who pointed me to writers like James Orr, B.B.Warfield of about 1900, who had no issues with the science. He also introduced me to much that is good in American evangelicalism.
He discusses what it meant for him to be confronted with creationism, the damage he has seen it do to others and makes some recommendations for how churches can approach it
There's too much for me to quote all the good bits, but here are some of his propositions:
quote:
Some propositions
1. The centre of the Christian faith is Christ crucified and risen. John 14 vs6.
2. God is Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The church has sufficiently defined the person of Christ and the meaning of his death and resurrection, but not the mode of creation.
4. Creationism adds to a faith centred on Christ, so that Christianity becomes Christ AND creationism. Soon the AND of creationism takes over and Christ is left to one side.
5. Scripture is revelation sufficient for salvation and does not reveal history, science or historical science. Its message is the Rock of Ages not the ages of rocks. As Calvin said, “he would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere”.
6. Scripture is written in the cultural mores of the writers, whether ANE cultures for the Old Testament or Graeco-Hebrew for the New Testament. It is thus accommodated to the thought forms of the writer’s day, not ours. As Calvin also said, “Moses had respect for us, not the stars”, and wrote for “the unlearned and rude
cheers,
L
[ 16. September 2011, 12:29: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
You are on the DH threads, Alan?
But being serious, I'd separate Creation Advocates from ordinary creationists. Creationists IME tend to be misinformed - but no more so than the average layman who doesn't fall for that specific load of rubbish. Creationist advocates on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not met many YEC advocates.
Frightningly, however, (according to the fount of all knowledge )
quote:
Between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they believe in Young Earth Creationism, depending on the poll.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But being serious, I'd separate Creation Advocates from ordinary creationists. Creationists IME tend to be misinformed - but no more so than the average layman who doesn't fall for that specific load of rubbish. Creationist advocates on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish.
My limited experience has tended to be otherwise. OK, I've only ever had extended talks (ie: more than asking questions at a meeting) with a couple of 'advocates' (ie: the sort of people who tend to stand up in front of people at meetings and/or write books). But, though I think they're fundamentally wrong on at least the issue of the timescale and nature of creation they've not been that different from the 'non-advocate' believers in YEC I've met. Generally better able to express Creationist ideas, better able to respond to challenges and questions (even if the responses I find to be unconvincing it's not a "errr, ummm I think you're wrong and I'm right but I don't know why"). But, I've not met any who come across as snake oil salesmen who know they're talking rubbish but hope it'll get a few more books sold.
Somewhat misinformed, probably. Slightly prejudiced against arguments that challenge their interpretation of Scripture, of course. But, then again who isn't? Deliberately avoiding trying to understand the science or deliberately aiming to deceive people? Absolutely not. In my experience at any rate.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I grew up fundamentalist. I'm firmly MOTR about Creation v. evolution: I think that, if God exists, She did whatever was done, but I'm not sure what She did. I think there are things to be said for both views, and generally don't have much time for the most extreme, vicious folks--at either end of the spectrum.
The thing is, while there definitely are creationists who look into the science, a lot of them probably won't. They view the Bible as being straight from God--a user manual, if you will. So the Bible *has* to be right. If there's a conflict with science, well, science has some catching up to do.
For them, the Bible is all of a piece. If you tell them there's a loose end hanging out from Genesis and invite them to explore that, they may not--because if they tug at that loose end, the whole thing may unravel. No Jesus, no salvation, no faith, no heaven.
I know a lot of Christians are perfectly happy with alternative views of the Bible. But...think of something you absolutely depend on in life: gravity, a relationship, your health, various truths. What if someone started unraveling that? How receptive would you be?
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not met many YEC advocates. But those I've met properly (ie: had a chance for a decent talk, rather than just sitting in a room listening to them talk) have been reasonably well informed about what science says, and intelligent. It's just that, like the vast majority of people I know who accept YEC, their convinced that their faith needs the foundation of an inerrant Bible. This, in their thinking strengthens any argument that appears to support Creationism and weakens any argument that appears to undermine it.
I've never experienced anything that remotely approaches conscious deception, or willful ignorance. Yes, some ignorance (who of us isn't ignorant about something? I admit to being ignorant of lots of the latest Creation Research). Generally a willingness to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. But, a definite unwillingness to shift their sense of authority from an Inerrant reading of Scripture to anything else ... and hence a definite sense of "the Bible says" trumping any argument.
I've met plenty of followers. I'd agree that 'ordinary decent creationists' aren't deliberately passing on falsehoods, as they simply don't know enough science to tell the difference between what the nice Christian man at the front of the hall is telling them, and what the godless atheist scientist is telling them. Making a decision between the two is an act of faith. It's as confusing as all hell for them to meet a scientist who is also a Christian, who believes that evolutionary biology is the best description of how we came to be, that the Earth is 4.6by old, and the universe is over twice that age.
The advocates? Yes, I've met a few. And had stand-up arguments with them. They are disingenuous in the extreme. I'm sure they believe they're doing the right thing, but in the process of honouring God, they lie, tell half-truths and they misrepresent both people and data. Even when they make a statement that is flat-out untrue and I call them on it, they just move onto the next 'fact', in the hope that it's not my area of expertise. Like Rev Roberts' story above, where I know they're wrong, they're really wrong. I know it, they know it. But they keep on doing it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
It's a Bad Thing in itself to believe something that just isn't true. But I've been trying to figure out what the consequences of YEC at the grass roots level are, beyond that.
I don't think there are any, or rather that any consequences to the YECcie are rather second-order unless the person in question is going to begin to distrust general science (as restricted to its proper sphere rather than the extended vacations of certain popular scientists into metaphysics) and thus begin to rubbish scientific findings in areas such as the effectiveness of vaccinations, the inadvisability of tiling your bathroom with asbestos and so on. But specific creationist beliefs don't seem to affect people's lives that much as far as I can tell, so I'd be less inclined than some to start to unravel those beliefs if there's a significant risk of it also unpicking their faith. I think on balance I'd rather people were Christian YECcies than atheist science-literates, as long as they're not doing critical science work. Of course I'd rather they were both Christian and science-literate but you can't have everything.
Having said that, the existence of YECcies in large numbers and with a significant media presence, is clearly damaging the credibility of Christianity amonst agnostics and non-hardline atheists. So I guess I'm advocating a robust defence of science-compatible Christianity in public but a careful pastoral approach to those who can't or won't separate YEC from the Christian faith.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's a Bad Thing in itself to believe something that just isn't true. But I've been trying to figure out what the consequences of YEC at the grass roots level are, beyond that.
I don't think there are any, or rather that any consequences to the YECcie are rather second-order unless the person in question is going to begin to distrust general science (as restricted to its proper sphere rather than the extended vacations of certain popular scientists into metaphysics) and thus begin to rubbish scientific findings in areas such as the effectiveness of vaccinations, the inadvisability of tiling your bathroom with asbestos and so on. But specific creationist beliefs don't seem to affect people's lives that much as far as I can tell, so I'd be less inclined than some to start to unravel those beliefs if there's a significant risk of it also unpicking their faith. I think on balance I'd rather people were Christian YECcies than atheist science-literates, as long as they're not doing critical science work. Of course I'd rather they were both Christian and science-literate but you can't have everything.
Of course, the problem is that in order for the Universe to be as young as Young Earth Creationists claim virtually all of science, from astronomy to zoology, must be wrong. To the extent they're aware of this, the YEC believers must also believe in a global conspiracy consisting of almost every scientist in the world to conceal "the truth" and spread disinformation to the general public. Given a world-view like that, you can see why there's a strong positive correlation between Young Earth Creationism and Climate Change Denialism , for example, or Anti-Vaccine activism. Once you believe in one nefarious conspiracy by the scientific community, others are that much easier to contemplate.
Strictly speaking that's not a pastoral implication, but it does have consequences.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
the problem is that in order for the Universe to be as young as Young Earth Creationists claim virtually all of science, from astronomy to zoology, must be wrong.
Actually I'm not sure that's true. The only YEC believers I've come across in real life have been fairly well-versed in science yet manage to reconcile their biblical literalism with it. They do this by asserting that the universe was created in such a way that there's an apparent continuity between the created- but not real-history, and therefore science is as useful as it is for us, just not for ascertaining anything about the historical reality of events pre-Genesis. This form of YEC is logically consistent but as has been said it's bad theology rather than bad science.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's a Bad Thing in itself to believe something that just isn't true. But I've been trying to figure out what the consequences of YEC at the grass roots level are, beyond that.
I don't think there are any, or rather that any consequences to the YECcie are rather second-order unless the person in question is going to begin to distrust general science.
When I first became a Christian, I started going to a church that was quite YECcy. Talks by Answers in Genesis type authors were advertised, although I don't remember any preaching on YEC.
And it was really weird. I had to learn to double-think - I was pretty damn sure it wasn't true, but the people talking about these things were the same people who were telling me about Jesus. And I really believed in Jesus, so should I be believing in YEC too? But I didn't.
I left that church, and became a woolly sort of Anglican. I still believe in God, and I'm glad that my first church didn't cause me to throw the baby Jesus out with the YECcy bathwater.
But it could have happened. So that to me is the danger - not that I could have ceased to believe in general science, but that I could have ceased to believe in God.
Those are the pastoral implications for me - how do people who don't believe in YEC manage in YECcy churches?
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
This form of YEC is logically consistent but as has been said it's bad theology rather than bad science.
I'm no scientist and no theologian, but I am student of literature and the attitude implies a truly total imaginative failure as to how to read and respond to a literary text.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Actually I'm not sure that's true. The only YEC believers I've come across in real life have been fairly well-versed in science yet manage to reconcile their biblical literalism with it. They do this by asserting that the universe was created in such a way that there's an apparent continuity between the created- but not real-history, and therefore science is as useful as it is for us, just not for ascertaining anything about the historical reality of events pre-Genesis. This form of YEC is logically consistent but as has been said it's bad theology rather than bad science.
The trouble with this and the part that I just do not get is that it turns God into the Prince of Lies. Creation tells us one story in terms of how old it is. The bible another. But Creation is thoroughly consistent and if it was created by a Creator, it is a deliberate lie. Which makes God's greatest act a deliberate lie. And God the Prince of Lies.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Actually I'm not sure that's true. The only YEC believers I've come across in real life have been fairly well-versed in science yet manage to reconcile their biblical literalism with it. They do this by asserting that the universe was created in such a way that there's an apparent continuity between the created- but not real-history, and therefore science is as useful as it is for us, just not for ascertaining anything about the historical reality of events pre-Genesis. This form of YEC is logically consistent but as has been said it's bad theology rather than bad science.
The trouble with this and the part that I just do not get is that it turns God into the Prince of Lies. Creation tells us one story in terms of how old it is. The bible another. But Creation is thoroughly consistent and if it was created by a Creator, it is a deliberate lie. Which makes God's greatest act a deliberate lie. And God the Prince of Lies.
As Justinian notes, this kind of Last Thursdayism is similar to positing a worldwide conspiracy by scientists to conceal The Truth, except that it posits God as the conspirator and the scientific community as His dupes. Of course, if we assume that God is actively trying to portray the Universe as much more ancient than it really is, doesn't that make Young Earth Creationism an act of defying God's will?
Of course, once you start assuming supernatural agency to explain away inconvenient data, there's no reason to limit such assumptions to the distant past. For example, if we assume that the Universe was created last Thursday, with everyone created having false memories of events that supposedly happened before creation, one could claim that Barack Obama is really the first President of the United States (for example). The fact that this is "logically consistent", as GreyFace puts it, is no reason to consider it plausible or to think it anything other than "bad science".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The fact that this is "logically consistent", as GreyFace puts it, is no reason to consider it plausible or to think it anything other than "bad science".
It's not science at all, that's my point. It doesn't actually have any scientific implications, because any scientific experiment or hypothesis based on the evidence will yield the same outcome. No scientific conspiracy required, therefore this form of YEC could well be a good scientist.
As for plausibility, well that's surely a question of your point of view. It's not high on my plausibility scale but then my faith doesn't have a particularly high requirement* for the historical accuracy of Genesis and the genealogies.
(Translation: it has no requirement whatsoever)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's not science at all, that's my point. It doesn't actually have any scientific implications, because any scientific experiment or hypothesis based on the evidence will yield the same outcome. No scientific conspiracy required, therefore this form of YEC could well be a good scientist.
No, they couldn't. Contorting your observations to fit your pre-determined notions is the antithesis of good science.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Contorting your observations to fit your pre-determined notions is the antithesis of good science.
That's true but if you think it's applicable to what I've been saying, then you've failed to understand me.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Though the originator of the Last Thursday theory PH Gosse *was* a good scientist. As well as a good artist, the two sometimes go together.
Or rather he was a good - maybe even great - natural historian, which is even weirder - because on the whole the development of evolutionary biology (along with its sisters-in-law ecology and genetics) have been driven by naturalists, people who got their boots muddy and learned about living things by seeing them in real life. The looney weirdo theories tend to come from lab-based scientists, or from chemists and physicists slumming in biology.
Gosse was (along with Darwin and Wallace) one of the most popular natural history writers of his day, and was elected FRS. Sort of the mid-19th-century equivalent of David Attenborough. He also invented the aquarium!
Gosse called his infamous book "Omphalos", i.e. "navel", because of the old joke argument about "did Adam have a navel?" He argued that he must have, because all living things are inherently at some point in their life cycle. So God must have created Adam - and all other animals - with the appearance of history and development - because many features of living animals only make sense in terms of development. The same for plants - the shape and form of a tree is a record of the pattern of its growth - an oak tree created de novo would either show the record of growth and development that never happened in the twists and turns of its branches and the patterrs of its buds and leaves - or else it wouldn;t really be very much like an oak tree at all.
In the same way God must have created light in transit from distant stars and sea-floor sediments and geological strata and so on.
Gosse proved all that to his own satisfaction because he was a naturalist, and a good one, and then he was apparently dismayed when no-one took him seriously. The more Christian among his fello-naturalists thought he was being blasphemous, the less Christian-minded just laughed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's a Bad Thing in itself to believe something that just isn't true.
[SNIP]
I think on balance I'd rather people were Christian YECcies than atheist science-literates
Why? It's not just a case of believing what is not true, it's also turning your back on all the evidence that shows it's not true. And, as Louise and Doc Tor indicated, it can be deliberate if not dishonest denial. Even you acknowledge that they tend to wave their tar-impregnated brush liberally over their fellow Christians. So what is it about an atheist that makes them worse?
[ 04. October 2011, 11:28: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
So what is it about an atheist that makes them worse?
I'll be blunt, since you ask, and I'll do it from a faith-neutral position as far as I'm able.
I believe that materialist atheists have no fundamental (deliberate choice of words) reasons to do good. Any particular materialist atheist can choose to do good but there's ultimately nothing backing that up or driving it beyond the natural inclinations of the person and the influences of society to encourage that. A Christian, whether YEC or not, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a believer in any non-wacky religion basically, has faith-based support in trying to do good that a materialist atheist lacks. If the natural inclination or the societal pressures nudge the person of faith towards the not-so-good then there is religious faith there as an extra layer to get past.
As I'm sure you're aware, this does not mean I'm saying materialist atheists are necessarily evil and Christians necessarily good. I am arguing that even if atheists are right about the existence of God (which I obviously don't believe) this world would end up a worse place if all the believers in it became materialist atheists. New Atheism - the hypothesis that religion causes more harm than good - can only be true, it seems to me, if religions in general teach people to do evil and frankly, in spite of the usual aberrant examples we can all quote, they do not.
The London bus campaign said, if I recall correctly, "There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Sounds very nice but whether it's good or not depends on what the person enjoying his life is going to do. If the price to be paid for somebody who's naturally inclined to kleptomania not burgling my house is that he has strange beliefs about the way the universe came into being, I think I can probably live with it.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
A Christian, whether YEC or not, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a believer in any non-wacky religion basically, has faith-based support in trying to do good that a materialist atheist lacks. If the natural inclination or the societal pressures nudge the person of faith towards the not-so-good then there is religious faith there as an extra layer to get past.
This seems to be based on the unstated assumption that the teachings of any religion, simply because they're the teachings of a religion, are automatically "good". That's a dubious (and dangerous) assumption to make in a world where groups like al Qæda or the Army of God exist.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to be based on the unstated assumption that the teachings of any religion, simply because they're the teachings of a religion, are automatically "good". That's a dubious (and dangerous) assumption to make in a world where groups like al Qæda or the Army of God exist.
No, it's based on the implied assessment that the moral teachings of non-wacky religions are generally though not exclusively good. Denying this would be absurd. You might have had a better case if you'd compared it to the teachings of secular humanism, but I'm fairly well convinced that that's technically a non-theist religion.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Actually ISTM that the biggest unstated assumptions are that there are "good" and "bad" ways to live, and that we have anyway of discerning the difference.
As a Christian, I can easily state that there are good and bad ways of living, and propose a means of discerning between them based on "love your neighbour", "love God" and "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you". People of other religions may well have different answers to those questions; they may state there is neither good nor bad, or that there is but put the means of discerning between them somewhere else - "does it make you happy?" or "does it lead to an evolutionary advantage?"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Actually I don't think secular humanism gets you any further. It's not really much more than a codification of an unjustifiable assumption that humans will do better if left to their own devices than if we follow religions. I mean unjustifiable both in the sense of there being no metaphysical backing for the concept of morality let alone an underlying reason for following a moral code, and in that I believe what evidence there is contradicts the assumption.
Do I need to include the disclaimer that I don't therefore say atheists are incapable of morality? I guess I do. Consider it included.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
No, it's based on the implied assessment that the moral teachings of non-wacky religions are generally though not exclusively good. Denying this would be absurd.
Just out of curiosity, what makes a religion "non-wacky"? For example, no one would claim that al Qæda are a hilarious bunch of cut-ups, but I'm guessing that's not the sense you mean "wacky".
At any rate, if you're assessing religious teachings to determine which of them are "good", what standard are you using for that assessment?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, what makes a religion "non-wacky"? For example, no one would claim that al Qæda are a hilarious bunch of cut-ups, but I'm guessing that's not the sense you mean "wacky".
It's not really important is it? I could come up with a definition that we could waste a couple of hours hacking away at until we'd reached a satisfactory conclusion but I'd settle for the major world religions as a starting point.
quote:
At any rate, if you're assessing religious teachings to determine which of them are "good", what standard are you using for that assessment?
The standard of "what I think is good" of course, the same as any other person who has ever attempted to make the same assessment about anything. What standard do you use?
My feeling is we'd agree quite closely on the contents of this standard, by the way, as would the major religions.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, what makes a religion "non-wacky"? For example, no one would claim that al Qæda are a hilarious bunch of cut-ups, but I'm guessing that's not the sense you mean "wacky".
It's not really important is it? I could come up with a definition that we could waste a couple of hours hacking away at until we'd reached a satisfactory conclusion but I'd settle for the major world religions as a starting point.
It was important enough for you to use as a qualifier in two successive posts, so I'm guessing you're trying to communicate something with the modifier.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
At any rate, if you're assessing religious teachings to determine which of them are "good", what standard are you using for that assessment?
The standard of "what I think is good" of course, the same as any other person who has ever attempted to make the same assessment about anything. What standard do you use?
And why is this ability to judge what is good not available to non-believers? In short, what difference does religion make if you're just going to apply your own judgement?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, what makes a religion "non-wacky"? For example, no one would claim that al Qæda are a hilarious bunch of cut-ups, but I'm guessing that's not the sense you mean "wacky".
I'm not sure. But its quite clear that there are wackier and less wacky religions or religious practices.
Like you say, Wahabism/Salafism isn't very wacky. But the whirling Dervishes are quite wacky. And those Indonesian Muslims who sacrifice pigs on the beach on the night of the full moon and roast them on fires then eat the meat while drinking raki and dancing (and I am NOT making that up) are really very wacky indeed.
Roman Catholicsm isn't, on the whole, wacky, thougyh it has its moments - probably the more of them the nearer the Mediterranean Sea you get. Neither is most Presbyterianism. But high-Church Anglicanism (in some ways in between the two) can be as wacky as a sock full of tipsy kittens.
But as you implied that's probably not what they menat by "wacky" to start with.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It was important enough for you to use as a qualifier in two successive posts, so I'm guessing you're trying to communicate something with the modifier.
Are you honestly telling me that you don't understand? That you don't know the difference between a mainstream religion and a wacky one? Perhaps the line's a bit fuzzy - that's not unreasonable - but it's utterly irrelevant to the point.
quote:
And why is this ability to judge what is good not available to non-believers?
The ability is available to non-believers. I've explicitly stated this, as you'd know if you'd been reading my posts. But if materialist atheism is true, there is no underlying basis for a concept of good or evil. If you don't get what I'm saying here, please read it a few more times until you do. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but until you get what I'm saying you'll keep thinking I'm arguing materialist atheists can't act morally which is not the case. What I am saying is that materialist atheism followed to its logical conclusion would leave you with no morality at all. Real materialist atheist humans fortunately, don't follow this far. As a rule ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
In short, what difference does religion make if you're just going to apply your own judgement?
Oh, I see what you're doing here - you're confusing the ability to identify what is good with the desire and ability to actually do it. I'm arguing primarily here that to the extent that a religion teaches moral action, believing that religion helps the believer to act morally in a way that materialist atheism cannot. Please don't confuse the two - or if you're going to, then please be upfront and state that you belief Christianity (YEC questions aside) on balance teaches people to do evil. Is that what you're saying?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, if you're assessing religious teachings to determine which of them are "good", what standard are you using for that assessment?
The standard of "what I think is good" of course, the same as any other person who has ever attempted to make the same assessment about anything. What standard do you use?
I don't see that there is necessarily any "of course" to be presumed in the standard of "good" being applied. I have seen enough examples on the Ship of people adopting quite novel definitions in order to accommodate some of God's more unpleasant Old Testament actions within their basic belief that "God is Good". So it is not at all unlikely that some Christians' idea of what is good departs significantly from the views of secular humanists, atheists, or users of the everyday English language, and not necessarily for the better.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
And why is this ability to judge what is good not available to non-believers?
The ability is available to non-believers. I've explicitly stated this, as you'd know if you'd been reading my posts. But if materialist atheism is true, there is no underlying basis for a concept of good or evil.
Except that since the religious are, according to you, also using their own judgement as the basis for deciding what is good, there's no "underlying basis" for the concept of good for them either. You're positing a difference between atheists and believers that doesn't follow from your premises.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
In short, what difference does religion make if you're just going to apply your own judgement?
Oh, I see what you're doing here - you're confusing the ability to identify what is good with the desire and ability to actually do it. I'm arguing primarily here that to the extent that a religion teaches moral action, believing that religion helps the believer to act morally in a way that materialist atheism cannot.
I'm not sure that follows, either. One of the philosophical problems with the concept of evil is that very few people deliberately perform what they consider to be evil acts. To go back to the example of al Qæda, the problem isn't that they have trouble choosing good actions, it's that they've decided that the actions they're taking are good.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
You're using "what I think is good" to mean "what I would think was good if I excluded any sources of authority you want me to exclude," I suspect.
But that's got nothing to do with what my answer to your question about why I'd generally prefer Christian YEC to science-literate materialism. It boils down to my belief that if I was starving to death, I'd be more likely to be fed by a believer (be it Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever other mainstream believer I missed out) than by a materialist. That belief is not based on my theism but on observation and deduction. Obviously YMMV.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You're using "what I think is good" to mean "what I would think was good if I excluded any sources of authority you want me to exclude," I suspect.
Not at all. You're the one who decided not to include any sources of authority in your methodology of determining what is good. It's intellectually inconsistent to hold that non-believers are less likely to be good than the religious because their morality is self-determined when you claim that the morality of the religious is also self-determined.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're the one who decided not to include any sources of authority in your methodology of determining what is good.
I thought those involved in this thread would have the intellect to understand that we all include external sources of authority in making such judgements. How naive of me. Have you ever come across somebody whose standard of what is good differs from what they think is good? How does that work? It sounds remarkably like insanity to me. Perhaps you just haven't thought it through.
quote:
It's intellectually inconsistent to hold that non-believers are less likely to be good than the religious because their morality is self-determined when you claim that the morality of the religious is also self-determined.
The last misunderstanding I could just about believe but this is so obviously untrue I don't think you're interested in debate here.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Interesting that you had to "confuse" a methodology with a standard to get that far, isn't it? I suspect you're too intelligent to have done that accidentally.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're the one who decided not to include any sources of authority in your methodology of determining what is good.
I thought those involved in this thread would have the intellect to understand that we all include external sources of authority in making such judgements. How naive of me.
Not naïve, just obtuse. The question, if you recall, is whether religious teachings are automatically "good", or if there's some standard by which we can judge them. Your response was that the teachings of various faiths can be analyzed for goodness in terms of "[t]he standard of "what I think is good"". Given that this is the reason you cite for the inadequacy of non-theistic morality, it seems a contradiction to consider it adequate when applied to theistic moral systems.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Actually I don't think secular humanism gets you any further. It's not really much more than a codification of an unjustifiable assumption that humans will do better if left to their own devices than if we follow religions.
There's more to it than that. Secular humanism derives its morality from admiration of certain potentials of humanity - usually including but in a fuzzy way not limited to reason.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The question of whether religious teachings are legitimately subject to examination by mere mortals goes to the heart of Young Earth Creationism, of course. The premise seems to be that not just the moral codes of religions are beyond question, but also teachings dealing with the layout of physical reality. It's often pitched in those terms as well. If the Universe is older than a few millennia (or species change over time or the Earth moves through space or whatever) then you have opened the door to moral relativism by making the Word of God™ subordinate to human reason. This authoritarian resistance to questions being asked is one of the reasons YEC is so intellectually pernicious.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question, if you recall, is whether religious teachings are automatically "good", or if there's some standard by which we can judge them.
No it wasn't. The question was, and I quote...
quote:
At any rate, if you're assessing religious teachings to determine which of them are "good", what standard are you using for that assessment?
Had you asked if we could agree upon some common standard to carry out this assessment, we might have had an interesting discussion but you didn't, you asked what standard I used. I'm not arguing (right now) that atheist morality is deficient but rather that the possession of religious faith makes a person more likely to actually follow the moral code they accept.
quote:
...that the teachings of various faiths can be analyzed for goodness in terms of "[t]he standard of "what I think is good"". Given that this is the reason you cite for the inadequacy of non-theistic morality
This is not the case. See above. Read for comprehension. Then try again. If you want to pursue this though, I'd be interested to know how you feel able to criticise the goodness or lack thereof of any religious teaching, if your own opinions on what is good are to be ruled out of court. You seem to be sawing through the branch you're sitting on.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
