|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Several messages in YEC approaches to empirical investigation made assertions as to the YEC premises. Here, I wish to give an alternative version. I am including a few parenthetic comments.
YECs assume that:Certain sections (other parts are taken as metaphoric or symbolic)
No doubt Faith and others would prefer that the YEC assumptions be described in terms of "the word of God". But that is not possible, because:of written text or its translation derived from old manuscripts of uncertain ancestry, dubious validity, questionable purpose (were they intended as history, cultural lore, poetry, fiction, or a mixture) are to be treated as absolute truth which overrules science. Moreover these presumed absolute truths are to be imposed on others, whether through the classroom or through legislation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
If that is correct, then debate is pointless. Not just debate here, but any kind of debate at all. A premise is not open to discussion, dispute and "having to be shown first." A premise is a nonnegotiable. If the premises are settled, then all that is required is formal logic. There are plenty of proof verification computer programs to do that. Humans need not be involved in settling truth issues if the premises are settled and non-disputable. In ordinary debating, the premises are always debatable. They are what much of the debate is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
One premise here says that Science has the right to judge God.
No, there is no such premise. However, I am willing to participate in a one-on-one debate with you on whether there is such a premise. Are you equally willing?
The other premise says that God has the right to judge Science.
I see this being asserted as a premise. But it is a foolish premise unless God Himself would actually appear and make the argument directly. What those who assert this premise appear to mean is that they, finite mortal humans though they are, have the right to judge science. And they ascribe their own argument to God. Personally, I would think it quite arrogant of me to tell God what His words are. And I find it quite contrary to the ideas of evangelical Christianity (in which I was raised) to see fundamentalists telling God what are His words.
Yes, NWR, my point is that debate IS pointless here once you see what is really going on
You seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of debate. I have the impression that you think of debate as a way of establishing truth. But truth is what it is, independent of debate. A debate can never establish truth. In my mind, there are several purposes for debating:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The problem apparently is that at EvC there are MANY notions of the nature of God and God's will, and many different interpretations of the Bible, which obscures the fact that outside EvC there is a coherent theology of the Bible that is orthodox and representative of a solid family of Protestants.
I don't know what world you live in. In the world I live in (outside of EvC), there are many different interpretations of the Bible.
If you get into allowing individuals to debate and define God's will, you get into a morass that will only lead to confusion, ...
Welcome to the real world. That confusion is why there are so many different religious denominations, including many different evangelical protestant denominations.
..., but if you appeal to this body of theology, ...
I was raised under the principle of sola scriptura. My understanding of that principle, is that the pope is not an authority for my beliefs. But it equally says that my pastor is not an authority, and that a body of theology is not an authority. I can take what my pastor says, what Billy Graham preaches, what the body of theology says, as guides but I cannot take them as authoritative. Ultimately, scripture is the authority, and it is between me and God as to how I shall come to interpret that scripture.
So it is not open to EvC-ers to determine "that God actually said what it is claimed that he said." This HAS been established.
You are right. It has been established -- by the pope. But evangelical Christianity rejects that authority, and indeed it rejects all human authority. It seems to me that you are announcing your membership in a new YEC cult that has rejected evangelical protestant principles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yes there are many interpretations to be found, but there is ALSO this body of coherent established Protestant theology and since it is this theology that is pertinent to the creationist-evolutionist debate, which is what is under discussion here, those that don't adhere to a literal six-day creation and a literal worldwide flood don't need to be considered in this context.
I have heard a number of evangelical theologians speak on the issue. While most preferred literalism (and the others did not reveal their own positions), they agreed that an acceptance of the theory of evolution is permitted. Or, as it is usually presented, a belief in evolution is within the pale of orthodoxy.
No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture.
I think you are mistaken. But I am no expert in theology, so I will wait and see if others comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
Here is a statement from the Southern Baptist web page. No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture.quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
I never suggested that "all individual interpretations are equal." Rather, I suggested that it is up to believers to decide for themselves what is the proper interpretation. And perhaps you also read such terms as "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" and "liberty in Christ" differently, consistent with your idea that individual judgments of scripture are acceptable, as if this could mean that all individual interpretations are equal? Here are some quotes from http://www.baptisthistory.org/priesthood.htm (the emphasis is added by me)
quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
No, that is not the disagreement. I should have changed the subtitle to clarify that.
But since this discussion is about your disagreeing with me that there is a coherent theology ... I get the impression that you probably misunderstand this concept to imply that their interpretations are equal in the sense that they are not answerable to the official doctrine of the church.
Not at all. I haven't suggested that all are equal. I am saying that the Church does not impose an interpretation, but requires each member to read the scriptures himself, no doubt with appropriate guidance.
The fact that this is a Confession of Faith implies that there IS an official doctrine of the church, in other words this very coherent body of theology I've been talking about, to which its members must subscribe.
Don't you find it interesting (and significant) that they call it a Confession of Faith, and not a Doctrine? What I am objecting to, is the way you are describing your YEC premises. If you were to point to some list of YEC articles of faith, and declare those to be the YEC premises, that might be reasonable. But instead, you are using terms such as "word of God" to describe these premises. You are, in effect, dictating to God what his words are. Most conservative churches are very careful to avoid doing that, and for good reason. What is the proper interpretation of scripture (what is the word of God) is vigorously debated in evangelical churches. It might be reasonable for you to say that YEC articles of faith are not up for debate. But to assert your own interpretation, declare that to be the word of God and to say that is not up for debate -- that is to violate the basic principles of evangelical protestantism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere. Even your phrase "appropriate guidance" IMPLIES a doctrine to which the interpretation must adhere. What other kind of "appropriate guidance" could there be? In the setting of a church, appropriate guidance would be to explain common understandings of the scripture. It would not be to require adherence to those understandings.
You have an entirely wrong interpretation of the "basic principles of evangelical protestantism" and I have no idea where you get your dogmatic authority to pronounce on this as you do.
What dogmatic authority? I have not asserted that I am an authority on this. As far as I know, Jimmy Carter is a southern Baptist. I suspect that his understanding of the scriptures might be quite a bit different from what you are reading into the southern Baptist documents.
I have shown you that I read the Baptist Confession of Faith entirely differently than you do.
Indeed you do. I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas.
The burden of proof is on you as the challenger to demonstrate that your interpretation is in fact held by anyone in that body or in fact anywhere in Protestantism.
I would say that you are the challenger here. You appear to be challenging the conventional wisdom. I have posted quotations and links to support my position. In typical YEC fashion you simply dismiss the evidence without argument. You are right, that debate with YECs is impossible. But it has nothing to do differing premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere. What this means is perhaps not as obvious as you hope, so I may be wrong about your intention, but I'm not in favor of any kind of education that does not aim to teach truth to students. I won't comment on the remainder of your post, since you have indicated that you do not wish to discuss it further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm not interested in starting a thread on baptist theology.
I did post evidence. You said you disagreed, and simply dismissed it. I can't see the point in posting more evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
As I see it, I have provided evidence. You have disagreed and simply dismissed my evidence without actually providing any contrary evidence.
I will allow the record to stand as it is. Nothing will convince you that you are wrong. However, people with inquiring minds will read these pages. They will read what I have posted, and they will read your dismissal. I hope they will also follow some of the links, and consult other evidence, that they may judge the issue for themselves. As further evidence, I suggest the wikipedia entry on Sola Scriptura as a starting point. Here are a couple of selections from that entry:
Wikipedia writes:
and
The idea of the singular authority of Scripture is the motivation behind much of the Protestant effort to translate the Bible into vernacular tongues and distribute it widely. They believed each man should be able to read the Bible for himself and compare the teachings of the Church and the Reformers against it. Wikipedia writes:
Sola scriptura reverses the order of the Church's authority, as it is understood in the Catholic tradition: Instead of the Catholic Church's teaching authority being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition. For this reason, it is called the formal cause of the Reformation. Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense. As John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church." The Reformers argued that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source, and thus, only insofar as the Church retains scriptural faith is it assured of all the promises of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith (in message 252) writes: The scientific evolutionist side says science must judge the Bible; the Biblical creationist side says the Bible must judge science.How silly. Science does not, and cannot judge the Bible, for science cannot judge anything. Scientists make judgements. But science is an institution, not a person, and has no capability of judgement. And even though scientists make judgements, most do not judge the Bible. It is the historian, not the scientists, who judge the Bible.
I am pointing this out, not to comment on its silliness. In fact, the quoted text has been responded to in several messages. It has even been nominated in Message 52. So obviously nobody had difficulty understanding what Faith meant when she wrote that. Likewise, the Bible cannot judge science. For the Bible is inert text, incapable of judging anything. It is people who choose to judge science, and not the Bible. My point is to note how easily and how naturally we use symbolic speech, to the extent that we often completely ignore what the text literally says. And this in a context where some people are insisting on a literalist reading of genesis text that is obviously symbolic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024