|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Reasons for Creationist Persistence | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy writes: It is the nature of human beings to select evidence that confirms their beliefs, but scientific evidence supportive of creationist beliefs is lacking and so it is no wonder that we see arguments from creationists that encourage ignoring evidence. Which I suppose is valid as a faith-based approach, but it isn't science. Human nature is a big part of the equation and I strongly agree that Biblical Creationism is a stumbling block to progressive thought. Perhaps in a larger context and at the core of the argument is the idea of whether or not God is personable, knowable, and has any relevance to modern ideas and day to day realities. Is It Science? Well...is it scientific to have questions about spiritual reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The way it is related the only reason they don't say 'from men' is for fear of the reaction from the populace. That hardly makes their answer honest.
We would only be in the same situation if questioning the divine authorship of the bible was likely to result in the disfavor of some faction whose good opinion was required. Are you most honest when you admit that you don't know that the gospel wasn't written by the flying spaghetti monster? This sort of 'last Thursdayism' seems the antithesis of a productive approach to anything, merely abrogating the very possibility of knowledge, beyond the fundamental Cartesian 'Cogito ergo sum'. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But so far what you have presented has been.
No Minister, Deacon, or Texas philosopher has any monopoly on truth. Theology is not subject to the disciplines of science. It is a belief and nothing more. Irrelevant. The source you quoted was lying, was committing a fraud, was misdirecting the audiences attention and was asserting a falsehood. You are totally refusing to even address the issues in the very material you presented. You are also pulling the old Gish Gallop. Instead of addressing the issue you simply deny there was a problem and then toss out yet another pile of spaghetti.
If I were to ask whether the Gospels came from God or from human authorship and inspiration, you could find yourself in a similar dilemma that the men in this scriptural example found themselves. Why? Only if YOU wrote what my imagined answer would be. Let's look at your answer as YOU provided them.
The way that I interpreted this lesson from the Bible is that Jesus dealt with men who asked him questions hoping to discredit his message and his intelligence---all the while having an agenda of their own. (Perhaps they too wanted to palm a pea? ) What is it in the passages that provides any support for your position? Do you know the required qualification for a Priest or to preach in the Temple during Jesus life?
Lets look at the question that Jesus asked in modern context. Jesus answered their question with a question because the answer to His question was also the answer to their question. No where in the passage does anyone answer his question.
I will agree with you guys that there is much ignorance in organized religion, particularly when it comes to education and science. What I won't agree with is that there is only one proper way to view Christianity and every other teaching is simply a lie and/or ignorant. But no one has said that; I certainly have not said that. What I have done is analyze the material that YOU provided and pointed out exactly how it was either a lie or willfully ignorant, which is simply lying to oneself. Deal with it.
If I were to ask whether the Gospels came from God or from human authorship and inspiration, you could find yourself in a similar dilemma that the men in this scriptural example found themselves. Very unlikely and actually a really ignorant assertion. This goes back to the very first part of the quote from Matthew...
Matt 21:23-27-- Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?" Now let me ask you a question. Why would the priests ask that question? Finally you posted this jewel.
Perhaps, like them, you would be the most honest if you simply said "I don't know." Come on Phat. Again, that is totally refuted by the very material you presented. Read it. Stop just grabbing soundbites. From your quote.
They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men'-we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet." There is no honesty in their response. Like today's Biblical Christian Cult of Ignorance Preachers, they based their answer not on the merit of the question itself, but rather on the perceived results of a given response. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
WK writes: This sort of 'last Thursdayism' seems the antithesis of a productive approach to anything, merely abrogating the very possibility of knowledge, beyond the fundamental Cartesian 'Cogito ergo sum'. So in other words, are you telling me that a scientific approach would never presuppose that a Creator existed in the form of a wise man 2000 years ago? With that sort of approach, all that we can then do will be to dismiss the godidit hypothesis and move on to human derived equations. I can never get a fair hearing on the scientific review board because they will always reject my initial positive truth claim. I suppose that I should quit bothering them....they may someday figure it all out anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So in other words, are you telling me that a scientific approach would never presuppose that a Creator existed in the form of a wise man 2000 years ago? Of course. Thank God!
With that sort of approach, all that we can then do will be to dismiss the godidit hypothesis and move on to human derived equations. Of course. Thank God.
I can never get a fair hearing on the scientific review board because they will always reject my initial positive truth claim. Of course you can get a fair hearing. Even your "initial positive truth claim" can be considered if you can provided sufficient support for it. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Of course you can get a fair hearing. Even your "initial positive truth claim" can be considered if you can provided sufficient support for it. And of course I can't. But why do spiritual truth claims need to be subject to empirical evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But why do spiritual truth claims need to be subject to empirical evidence?
Then how do you separate them form illusion or delusion? Edited by Theodoric, : forgot an n Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you read what your write?
Did you ask "But why do spiritual truth claims need to be subject to empirical evidence?" Are you making a claim and are you asserting that the claim is true? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jon,in topic starter writes: I quite agree that there is a distinction between knowledge and belief.
I really don't see the reason that the Creos keep arguing creationism as science. Every so often they come up with some different piece of "evidence" to support their position. The evidence ALWAYS has some sort of flaw, and ultimately is shown to be fake, misinterpreted, etc. So, what really keeps those Creos ticking? How can you present point after point after point and have it rejected, and still keep trying? Do they actually think that one day we might be swayed? That sometime they will find a dino-human print combo and we'll see the Light? They must surely be dilusional to think such stuff. Perhaps they could tell us their motives here? subbie writes: So its a battle for a worldview that favors literal Biblical interpretation and perhaps a bit of a religious Theocracy? God help us if Sarah Palin gets their support!
Scientific success and accuracy aren't nearly as important as surface plausibility. And, keep in mind, at this stage, they don't have to prove that they are right, they only have to raise a certain level of doubt about whether science has it right. CatholicScientist writes:
Yet these Biblical Creationists insist that their view be scientifically validated! Which to me is impossible.
They are not trying to sway (the) scientist. They are just trying to make their view not impossible. Percy writes:
And as long as they insist that education present both sides, there will always be controversy.
It's important to understand why there even is a creation/evolution debate. Evangelical Christians perceive evolution as a threat to both faith and morality, and so they will always oppose evolution. They're not going away, and the pressures they exert to diminish treatments of evolution in public schools will not go away, either. And as long as they create the impression in the public mind of a legitimate scientific controversy that is yet unsettled, they will continue to have a great deal of success.jar writes:
Its sad why these people are scared of what their children might learn. They seem to think that there is a secret plot by the devil to teach a big lie.
the plan is to isolate the children into thought limiting Church Schools and Home Schools. That way the children can be kept in near total ignorance.jar writes: OK, but how far should a parent go? What if they end up with kids who even doubt whether God is real? Even if thats a good thing, it may not seem like a good thing for those hopeful parents.
The reason that the Christian Cult of Ignorance is turning to Church Schools and Home Schooling is that they know that their core beliefs, Biblical Creationism and or Young Earth, can not stand up to examination. They know from experience that if children are allowed to learn the truth, they will abandon such nonsense. In addition, they know that society will watch their efforts in a more open environment such as the public school system. The only hope for the Christian Cult of Ignorance is to isolate the kids, to keep them in intellectual bondage as long as possible, to give brainwashing and indoctrinating the best chance and to keep the children from developing critical thinking skills. GDR writes: I agree. In fact, I often wonder why I nget rejected by my fellow christian believers if I even dare challenge the Bible? Is not God big enough to adopt me anyway?
If you take the Bible as being literally true then it makes things it relatively simple and you can come up with answers for most questions and not have to think about it. It seems to me however, that if Christians believe in a God that created us, still cares about us and does still have an impact on our lives, then I we should at least give consideration to the idea that, just maybe, God is using the scientific community to reveal more of the truth of His creation to us than he was able to 3000 years or so ago to the early Israelites. One problem I suppose is that there seems to be a group that feels that if a six day creation period isn't literally true then none of it's true. It's a shame really. God is a whole lot bigger than one book; even one that is inspired. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I suppose that without support, I cant even make a truth claim about the presupposition of God. We dont want to become a nation of honest agnostics, however. Our beliefs are important to our sanity.(or insanity)
Are you making a claim and are you asserting that the claim is true?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024