Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 8:58 AM
26 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,047 Year: 7,083/19,786 Month: 1,624/1,581 Week: 3/443 Day: 3/34 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 26 of 303 (242481)
09-12-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate. People like Faith start not with a belief in God but a belief in the doctrines of their Church - and they hold that even God is subject to those beliefs. They may not admit to it - not even to themselves. But that is the core of their beleif.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 31 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 35 of 303 (242493)
09-12-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


No, it's true. I've never run into an inerrantist who didn't put their personal beliefs before the Bible.

You yourself won't allow that God's relationship to the Bible could be anything other than the one you have decided. The Bible doesn't say that God wrote the flood story. You say that. You're quite prepared to dictate what God did or did not do, without God having iny say in the matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 51 of 303 (242517)
09-12-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:26 AM


That wasn't my opinion, that was a fact. You would find my opinions even less palatable.

But real debate requires only that you are given a chance to make your case reasonably. The fact that you can't - relying on double standards, repeating discredited assertions and trying to shut down examination of contrary evidence or alternative explanations - shows the real problem. You don't HAVE a good case.

A sham debate is what you want - because you can't honestly win a real one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:15 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 63 of 303 (242547)
09-12-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:15 PM


FIrstly Faith DOES rely on double standards.

She is prpeared to reject mainstream geological explanations because she finds them ridiculous. But when one of her explanations is - justifiably - rejected on the same grounds she cries foul.

She clals criticism of her claism and tactics abuse - but when she abuses others she calls it legitimate, true criticism (even if it's blatantly false).

If it ISN'T a double standard it is because Faith is fundamentally dishonest about the standards she is using. Which would be even worse.

And Faith doesn't JUST reject alternative explanations out of hand - in recent discussion she's ruled out even CONSIDERING alternative explanations under the pretext that it's "begging the question".

IRH's offer was good. That's why Faith is working on turning it into a sham debate where the Flood must be assumed to be true. She's jsut using the typical fundamentalist tactic of falsely accusing opponents of doing what SHE's doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:15 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:56 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 71 of 303 (242568)
09-12-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:56 PM


As I understand it, Faith's proposal is that the Flood will be taken as a given. Only explanations consistent with the Flood will be allowed, and the best of those will be taken as the most reasonable explanation - even if there are better explanations which contradict the Flood.

Certainly, Faith has explicitly ruled out the idea that the Flood should be considered anything other than an established fact. So what exactly is there to debate ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:56 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 105 of 303 (242647)
09-12-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-12-2005 3:33 PM


Your mask is slipping
OK. According to you the entire purpose of YEC is to bully people into rejecting the truth and worship you. Souns pretty Satanic to me. Do you think that you're the Anti-Christ or something ?e
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 127 of 303 (242702)
09-12-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
09-12-2005 5:53 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Well you haven't provided any reason to think that the deck is unfairly stacked against you. So far as I can see your idea of a debate is that everyone should agree with you.W
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 143 of 303 (242813)
09-13-2005 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


No Catch 22
What yo actually mean is that the evidence is aginst you. You can try to dismiss it with falsehoods, invent implausible interpretations - and then whine when they are criticised and use bullying and abuse but it still doesn't work.

So basically you are now demanding that debate must have a built-in clause which guarantess you victory. You demand that your theology must be accepted as factually correct. i.e you demand that the rules are completely stacked in your favour.

Of course if you wanted to use theology as your basis you could choose to argue theology rather than the empirical evidence. You chose not to do so fromn the time you started posting here. By refusing to do so you have eliminated any reasonable prospect of getting your theological assumptions accepted as true.

So you are left without a leg to stand on. There is no onus on anyone else to accept your theological assumptions. Fair debate does NOT require a rule insisting that yor theological beliefs must be accepted as unquestionably true - in fact it REQUIRES that there is no such rule. You can USE your theological beliefs outside the science forums IF - and ONLY if - you are prepared to defend them. THAT is fair debate.

If you can't win a fair debate then that doesn't mean that the rules must be changed to rig things in your favour. It doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against you. It just means that you have a losing hand. That's your problem - and not one that should be "fixed" by rigging the rules to guaantee you victory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:14 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 146 of 303 (242875)
09-13-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:14 AM


Re: No Catch 22
I don't think that we have the same view of what Faith wants. So far as I can tell Faith doesn't want to see IF the physical evidence can be reconciled with the Flood. Faith wants the Flood taken as fact because she says God says so - and then it msut be assumed that the physical evidence can be reconciled with the Flood,. She's perefctly entitled to that view, but she isn't entitled to demand that anyone else accepts it or to insist that it must be taken as a given in a debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:14 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 149 of 303 (242885)
09-13-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:39 AM


Re: No Catch 22
The idea that certan debates should have preconditions of the sort you suggest is not unreasonable - if it is stated upfront - but it can't be what Faith means. For a start Faith doesn't restrict herself to threads with such conditions. And if it isn't stated upfron hten Faith has no right to impose it on others.

So it can't be what Faith means in her claim that the deck is stacked against her. Her comments only make sense if she means that she wants her belief that "God said X" to be accepted as a valid arguemnt for X. And - given her refusal to discuss the Bible it is an argument which she wants placed beyond question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 156 of 303 (242917)
09-13-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:26 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Thanks for confirming that my impression was correct.

quote:

I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.

Well you aren't going to get that acknowledgement because it isn't true. For a start you wouldn't be saying that if the scientific evidence actually supported your interpretation of the Bible. If you need to appeal to the Bible over the scientific evidence it's because they show different things.

You could also legitimately debate which side the physical evidence supported. YOU don't have to accept it as more authoritative than your beliefs, even if others do. But equally you would not be free to introduce your theological views as an argument into such a thread - because they are not relevant.

Or you could take part in theological debates on the nature and purpose of the Bible (there ARE views - even within Christianity - other than yours).

No, legitimate debate is possible BECAUSE you can't insist that your views are accepted automatically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:37 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 168 of 303 (242950)
09-13-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:37 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Do you understand that your opponents do NOT agree with your presuppositions ?

Do you understand that if they DID agree with your presupposiitons they would also agree that hte FLood happened, that the Earth is young etc. ?

Do you understand that if you want your presuppositions to be accepted then it is your responsibility to argue FOR them ? By refusing to do so you may place yourself at a disadvantage, but one that is entirely of your own making.

quote:

In any case my presupposition is that the Bible is God's word, that it is to be read as written, including Genesis, and that therefore the Flood did happen, and if these assumptions are excluded from debate about these very questions, this is as good as denying YECs the right to hold them, and that's stacking the deck, and that makes debate impossible. And I mean REALLY impossible, not just difficult. All the complaints against YEC methods here are fundamentally about our believing these things.

THat's complete rubbish. Your presuppositions are not excluded from the debate - they are part of what is being debated. That is why they cannot be used as arguments IN the debate. You are not being denied the right to hold your views - your demands are tantamount to denying your opponents the right to hold their views. Te deck is not stacked against you - you are demanding that the deck should be stacked in your favour. Debate is not impossible - but it would be if your demands were accepted.

As I've said there is NO demand that science trumps all else - the science forums are limited to scientific arguments but - even there - you are not required to personally beleive a conclusion simply because it is scientific. As I said the science forums are for arguing which view the empirical evidence supports.

Essentially your precondition for a "real" debate is that your opponents should agree to surrender without a fight. Can't you understand that omitting such a condition is hardly stacking the deck against you ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:06 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 177 of 303 (243007)
09-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:06 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Message 151 agrees with your statement - and 163 contradicts it.

If all Faith wanted was a few threads where YEC views weren't challenged - where that was part of the rules set up beforehand then she couldn't argue that the rules were "stacked" against her. If she hooses to participate in threads without such rules - as she has - then she could have no complaint under your intepretation.

Her complaint that debate is impossible under the current rules would also make no sense. How could asking for threads where there is no debate on the subject of YEC make debate possible ? And if it would then why isn't she proposing such threads, instead jumping on to other threads with no such rule and then compaining that the ruels are rigged against her ?

Her complaints ONLY make sense if she means that she wants to use her YEC beliefs as an argument while being exempted from supporting those beliefs with reason or evidence.

You also manage to confuse the idea of allowing SOME threads where the YEC view is not challenged (for the purposes of working out YEC responses to the evidence) with the idea that YEC beliefs should be accepted as a valid argument. I do not insist that every thread should deal directly with the main debate but it would be completely wrong to simply allow YECs to shut down debate in the name of "fairness".

I'm afrad that by mixing material from two posts without considering the context you are really confusing the issues. Do you really believe that unless we accept the YEC view that the Bible is the literal word of God and that their interpretation is the correct one we cannot set up individual threads where YEC is accepted for the sake of argument or for the purposes of the topic ? Because that is what you are saying.w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:06 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:47 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 184 of 303 (243023)
09-13-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:47 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Let me make it clear. I don't find any problem with the occasional thread which assuems YEC ideas about the Bible for the sake of argument or for YECs to sort out their ideas between themselves.

But that is certainly not what I think that is all that Faith is asking for. As I've pointed out her remarks make no sense unless she is asking for a general rule to tilt things in her favour.

Even if I should happen to be wrong, you need to recognise that my answers to Faith are based on my perception of what she is saying and not yours. If you assume otherwise then you are very seriously misrepresenting what I am saying. In exactly the way that you did.A


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:47 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 4:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14959
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 193 of 303 (243063)
09-13-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
09-13-2005 4:24 PM


Re: No Catch 22
The science is, of course, open to debate. On it's own terms. Just as your theology is - or should be - open to debate on theological terms.

quote:

if in the middle of a debate about some scientific question a YEC can be suspended for mentioning that the Flood is a given that he will not dispute, then a scientist ought to be suspended for insisting that science trumps the Bible.

A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments. Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden your argument amounts to saying that if creationists can be suspended for breaking the rules then other people should be suspended even if they follow the rules.
If Ben's proposal comes off then you could get your wish - but only on that forum.

quote:

If YEC presuppositions are up for debate in every debate, but the scientific presupposition is not up for debate, debate is not possible for YECs, and obviously debate is impossible anyway as there is nothing left to debate but whether the Bible is to be subject to science or science subject to the Biblical God.

Of course that isn't the case - it is, however, the mirror image of what you are asking for. You DON'T discuss your presuppositions - you discuss scientific matters and want to introduce your presupposiitosn to THOSE discussions.

quote:

That is correct. That is the nature of the problem here. Your views preclude mine, mine preclude yours. Except that yours rule at EvC which means YECs are unfairly handicapped in the very terms of the debate.

It may bw well be true that you want to deny your opponents the right to hold their views - but that does not entitle you to claim that the reverse is the case. And you have yet to show that the rules unfairly handicap you in the slightest.

quote:

You are failing to see how the deck is now stacked in YOUR favor as it is your demands which preclude mine from having a say anywhere but the Faith and Belief forums

That's not a handicap at all. Why shouldn't we have forums restrcted to science ? That way we can deal with the discussion of which side is supported by the scientific evidence without confsuing the issue with faith-based beliefs. From either side.

quote:

This is not about personal beliefs. This is about how debate is conducted.


And that is EXACTLY why your demands that your personal beleifs should be given special favourable treatment is NOT acceptable.

quote:

Yes, that is the view that stacks the deck against YECs. To you it seems so obvious as to be absurd to question it, but the rule of subjecting God's word to the test of empirical evidence is to weight the debate against YECs.

In other words it is not the rules that are unfair at all. If the empirical evidence is against you then that is not the fault of the rules - and certainly not a valid reason for rigging the rules in your favour.

quote:

And yes, for me to insist that the Flood is a given weights the debate against science it seems so obvious as to be absurd to question it,

It would certainly be absurd for you to inssit that the scientific conclusions should be subject to it. The strength of science is that it is NOT dependant on narrow religious beliefs, but on a minimal and utiltiarian metaphysic which is accepted by very many peopel from numerous different religious traditions.

As I say you are not required to accept that the scientific conclusions are true - for the same reason that you cannot ask anyone to reject the scientific conclusions because they contradict your religious beliefs.

Now I cannot see any valid purpsoe for introducing faith-based arguments into the sciene forum. The science is of interest in itself and the restrictions on the science forums therefore serve a useful purpose. Especially as the rule does not unfairly restrict you.

Nor can I see any valid purpose in making a rule that your religious beliefs must be accepted as unquestioanble facts. If you want to argue the theology than the onus is on you to start threads on theology. You can even insist that theological considerations should overrule science for the purposes of such a thread.
B


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:05 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:19 PM PaulK has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019