Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Jar writes:In the world of science, you are expected to make your finding public and freely distributed throughout the community, for the purpose of criticism, testing and replication. (...)There is nothing comparable to the ethics system found in science in the realm of theology.

Mere Orthodoxy writes:... The Existence of Truth. In C.S. Lewis’s masterful dream-like novel, The Great Divorce, he records a conversation with an Anglican priest who rejects heaven for hell. At the core of the priest’s resistance to heaven is the idea that heaven is a place of facts. He is far more interested in his opinion, and consequently refuses to enter heaven. “To travel hopefully is better to arrive,” he claims. Questions are more important than answers. Answers bring finality and stagnation”they are the way to dogmatism, which in our contemporary climate can only be said with a sneer.But inquiry”discussion, questions, conversation”is about finding answers, not about endlessly questioning. It is about finding a deeper understanding of both the questions and the answers, whether those answers are revealed to us in Scripture or are simply products of experience.As the Priest’s friend from heaven puts it, “Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers . Thirst was made for water, inquiry for truth.”[1] The irony, of course, is that the Priest leaves heaven to return to an eternity of isolation and solitude. In fact, he laments the fact that his normal group of friends have lost their intellectual abilities. The conversation in heaven”a conversation of inquiry and understanding”is only possible in light of the fact that there are facts in the world. Outside the existence of answers, no genuine conversation is possible.The point is a simple one: if no final answers exist, then ultimately the best that we can do is opinion. This has three potential effects, though, on conversation. One, it destroys the notion of progress. Because there are no facts to measure opinions or interpretations by, there is no standard to which opinions must be measured. And consequently, there is no possibility of progress in the discussion.The whole notion of progress depends upon a fixed goal, and in learning, that fixed goal is facts. It is easy to see how a rejection of facts is an invitation to despair.The second effect of this worldview, though, is more pernicious. If only opinions count, then “persuasion” changes from persuading someone to see the way things are to persuading someone to see things how I see them. In other words, the discussion moves away from a spirit of inquiry to a spirit of power. May the most rhetorically persuasive person win. Besides being antithetical to the Christian gospel, that sort of environment will stifle any real conversation.Thirdly, if a conversation is not focused on knowing the truth, then what often happens is “opinion-lobbing.” In other words, people simply say their opinions without opening themselves to hard questions or criticisms.This happens a lot, I think, in Church small groups. Because we are afraid of making others feel bad, we sometimes allow opinions to be stated without rebuttal or question. This sort of opinion-lobbing, though therapeutic and sometimes necessary, will eventually stifle conversation. The only thing that keeps a great conversation alive is the pursuit of a truth that is independent of anyone’s minds.The existence of truth”whether about the world, about texts, about beauty, about anything”is absolutely essential if discussion is going to be something more than opinion-lobbing or power struggles.

Jar writes:We can do more than just "opinion"... we can have "opinion backed up by fact or reason." In fact, you can have a whole series, a body of knowledge backed up by fact or reason yet still go on questioning.

Jar writes:But look at your example, the old Biblical Christian Cult of Ignorance fall back trick of spouting "including whether you even exist or not" as though it even made sense or had significance. They trot this old piece of dead meat out just like they trot out the dead meat of Absolute Morality and Absolute Truth. It's just another method to misdirect folks attention while the conman palms the pea.

Jar writes:The problem is there is no Ethics Committee in religion that will catch folk lying like that and sanction them as there is in science.(...) The person you were quoting was lying, was pulling a con, was trying to misdirect the audience.

Jar writes:Endlessly questioning does not exclude finding answers. By endlessly questioning you find the answers and then go on to find even more answers.

anastasia writes:The persistence of CCOI is a problem similar to inter-city violence and solved by getting kids to know there is another world outside of this. Religion being untouchable, it is hard to reach the kids.

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.

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'.

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.

Jon,in topic starter writes: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: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:They are not trying to sway (the) scientist. They are just trying to make their view not impossible.

Percy writes: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: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: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: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.

jar writes:Are you making a claim and are you asserting that the claim is true?