quote:I'm no expert in argumentation, but your reliance on the dictionary quote seems like an "argument by authority". Is that allowed? The definition is curious, and subsequently so is that of "selfless", as the definition is derived from that of "selfish".
I rely on the dictionary as an authority on the common meaning of the term. That is only an argumentative fallacy if the dictionary constitutes a final authority, ie, it is argued that "selfish" has the meaning given by the dictionary because the dictionary says so without appeal to any other fact, ie, it is claimed that the dictionary saying that p is itself sufficient reason to believe that p.
That is not my claim. I claim that good dictionaries determine the meanings of terms by an exhaustive emperical search of their common usage. So by appealing to the dictionary, I am appealing to the common usage of the term by English speakers. I appeal to the dictionary as prima facie evidence of what that usage is on the basis of the research that goes into the preperation of dictionaries.
quote:(that's actually kind of interesting, in the sense that the "good" term is derivative of the "bad" one - hmph! interesting.)
Actually, they are both derivatives of the term "self". Neither is derived from the other.
quote:Perhaps better terms can be coined. One for any action emating from the self's motives, and one for it's opposite - any action that emanates from the self but without regard to the self's motives.
This would appear to be an arduous task.
As already indicated, we could to this, but it would be largely pointless. We would have little (if any) use for the terms. Further, they would not be substitutes for the terms "selfish", "selfless", and "altruistic" which we would still have a use for in that we are interested in whether peoples primary motivations in general or in particular cases are their own well being or advantage, or the well being or advantage of others.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again though you make an assumption. You assume the rules are the same today as they were then. (whenever "then" was... there are certianly 7-day literalists that are not necessarily young earth creationists)
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no factor alters the effective mutation rate by an order of magnitude. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are making the same fallacious assumption that many creationists make. The Earth is Not a Closed System.
And the answer, however simplistic, is that God could have. (And we won't even talk about a drastic influxes of UV radiation which certianly can send mutations up at exponential rates)
Those creationists who understand that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply directly to the Earth because the earth is Not a Closed System, actually have far more options. Even though radioactive decay rates are now constant, and through them we get linear extrapolations of age,we are still gambling that the decay rates were always like they are now.
We seem to have gone of into left field here because I phrased one of my claims poorly - the claim that you quoted.
As I originally asserted, there is a maximum effective rate of mutation which if exceded for any sustained period, or by any significant amount results in a "mutation catastrophe". (An "effective mutation" is just a mutation which effects the phenotype of the individual.) The species will loose viability and become extinct because the rate of harmfull mutations is too high. If the rate of harmfull mutations is too high, natural selection cannot eliminate them and they will accumulate in the population to a lethal extent.
The maximum effective mutation rate beyond which mutation catastrophe strikes approximates to 1/N where N is the size of the genome. At least two known factors modify this, allowing a higher mutation rate. High rates of reproduction allow a higher maximum effective mutation rate; and sexual reproduction also allows a higher effective maximum mutation rate. The consequence of this is that humans, for example have an maximum effective mutation rate of around 3/N (meaning that on average, each new human has three mutations which have a phenotypic effect).
Now what I claimed is that no factor alters the maximum effective mutation rate without mutation catastrophe by an order of magnitude. (It's probably more correct to say more than an order of magnitude.) Certainly there are conceivable circumstances in which the base mutation rate is increased by more than an order of magnitude, but all such circumstances will result in mutation catastrophe. Deleterious mutations will increase in the population at an unsustainable rate.
Furthermore, Young Earth Creationists do not just claim that mutations happened more frequently in the past. The claim that mutations which evolutionists claim took place over millions of years occured over a few centuries. That is, they claim the mutation rate was 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than the limit above which mutation catastrophe is inevitable. In simple terms, they suggest a mutation rates such that every newborn would have, on average, between a thousand and a hundred thousand new mutations that effect the phenotype - a situation, in other words were every new born has from 900 to 90,000 harmfull mutations. The correct term for this scenario is immediate extinction.
Now, you suggest that "God could have". Well of course he could have. God could also have created the entire world (including our memories) just five seconds ago, so that while I believe I have written this entire post, and have memories of doing so, in fact I have only written this paragraph, and God created the rest of this post and my memory of writting it. God could ... anything he wants to.
This means, of course, that God could have is not a scientific explanation. It is not an explanation that can have evidence supporting it from science. Because God could have anything, then saying God did predicts nothing. Because God could do anything he wants, saying that he did tells us absolutely no emperical facts about the world. It also provides no emperical explanation for anything in the world either.
So if you want to use "God could have" as an explanation, be my guest. But don't pretend it is science, or that the view you propound is an alternative scientific hypothesis in any form. Because it isn't.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never *ever* clamed it is an alternative scientific hypothesis. Nor am I actually propounding it, if you'd read what I said correctly. Even though I was raised a particular way, I do not currently claim to believe it.
I was addressing how to open dialouge that can get both sides thinking outside their pre-defined parameters, somewhere between religion and science, in order for both sides to gain greater understanding of the other. A lot of times this works better than telling someone they are full of manure and flat out wrong, even if it's true, because it automatically engages defense mechanisms all around.
As far as the mutation catastrophe, I'm not arguing with your data. However the one of the biggest points of faith of Creationists is, "There but for the Grace of God go I". In other words, mutations could have happened at a catostrophic rate, and it's only the Grace of God that prevented the catastrophe. It's only the Grace of God keeping the world from being a living Hell now.
You might say, "Why play this silly game when the Creationists are so out to lunch?" I would also submit that the number of hard core Creationists out there, is actually far less than the number of anti-abortion activists. I believe that there are many more people that are willing to be flexible in creation sequences than it may seem. But none of them are going to give the time of day to someone who thinks they are silly to begin with. Again, defense mechanisms will be thrown up.
I don't understand why the scientists, have a problem with using psychology to get people at least a smidgen closer to reality, if hard facts aren't working. And why they don't measure progress, in getting people smidgens closer, rather than demanding leaps. This is at the level of faith and belief, you *have* to address it sideways. Cold scientific facts, no matter how much evidence you have, ain't gonna work.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I don't understand why the scientists, have a problem with using psychology to get people at least a smidgen closer to reality, if hard facts aren't working.
In the simplest terms, because science is about determining how the world works and using psychology in such a manner, to apply untruths and half-truths about the universe to the purpose of finding a middle ground is fundamentally dishonest. It goes against the very concept of what science is meant to achieve, promoting compromised definitions to the real world, instead of factual ones. You might as well ask someone that believes so strongly in the Christian prohibition against killing so completely that they will not even defend their own life if threatened to assassinate a child. The mere suggestion for many is like driving a knife into their back. I happen to think that in the short term it is a necessity and that, while a clear line should be drawn between what is *still* unreasonable about their stance and sound science, groups like the Catholics have become the strongest allies. Ironic, given that for much of their history their entire purpose was bent to destroying science and any idea that contradicted them. The flip side of such an allience though is that at some point the line still gets drawn, where one can't pass, and/or religion persists, not because it holds any truth, but simply because it can't be killed with anything short of divine intervention.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not my claim. I claim that good dictionaries determine the meanings of terms by an exhaustive emperical search of their common usage. So by appealing to the dictionary, I am appealing to the common usage of the term by English speakers. I appeal to the dictionary as prima facie evidence of what that usage is on the basis of the research that goes into the preperation of dictionaries.
Ok, so allowing this authoritative source into the argument, you would allow me to cite it as well?
quote:re: my claim that the definition of selfless was conditioned on the definition of selfish, TC remarked: Actually, they are both derivatives of the term "self". Neither is derived from the other.
The fact that selfish and selfless are linquistic modifications of the term "self" is obvious. That the empirical definition (from your source) of "selfless" is derivative of the definition of "selfish" would seem to return to the concern I posited earlier. You rely on an "authoritative source" when it supports your argument, but dismiss or otherwise obfuscate the authority of that source when it contradicts your argument.
Generally speaking, I disagree with your emphasis on the utility of terms. A well-posed problem is more easily solved than one mired in murk. Good solid root definitions can alleviate superfluous postage.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think it is important to remember that no theory of evolution implies progress (at least not in the sense of improvement - except the Red-Queen arm's race analogy). The theory of evolution via natural selection that I understand implies no progress save that of one towards increasing complexity (as a product of selection on a temporally stable substrate). That the evolution of complexity should invoke essentiality is not an argument against Darwinism.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the simplest terms, because science is about determining how the world works and using psychology in such a manner, to apply untruths and half-truths about the universe to the purpose of finding a middle ground is fundamentally dishonest.
I don't think you need to use untruths *or* half truths. I think it can be done honestly, but non-confrontationally, tactfully and respectfully.
Also if it is so horrible, for people to believe a falsehood, then anything closer to the *truth* is an improvement. If it is really that important, why not use the knowledge of how human brains work to achieve the end, of getting someone at least closer to that *truth*. Confrontation and debate doesn't change many minds. The minds that are changed normally have more to do with the debater's style, than actual content.
In other words, even though that you can argue it's anti-science, the scientists need to do a better job of marketing and advertising, and embedding their ideas as a positive meme in the collective unconscious. I don't think marketing or advertising is inherently anti-science, since begging for research grants is on precisely the same moral plane.
posted
From a purely practical standpoint, the number of scientists that are religious is about 20% lower than the general population, but those 70% *do* exist on a middle ground. The major issue is that probably 90% of both the 70% that are and the 30% that are not religious, don't have time to either learn how to cater to the layman, the skill to do so, or the layman don't have the patience to learn the minimum necessary to understand what the scientist is trying to say in the first place.
This problem is compounded even more by recent revelations that in some states there is a defacto standard of teaching creationism and religious explainations, at the expense of science and biology, even though its not legal for them to do so. The state simply isn't stopping it and the parents don't mind because they are just as brainwashed and ignorant as the schools are making their kids. Its also impossible to find a middle ground when you don't speak the same language and your opponents are hell bent on making sure their kids never learn it either.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See. That's why I'm saying that it rests on the *Scientists* to learn how to speak "common" language, cause the other way around it isn't gonna work.
I can't believe I'm doing it, but I'm quoting my mother here. She has a Master's degree in science education.
Anyway, in her ideal, a "truly educated" person, is able to interact with anyone on the level they understand. The onus is on the "educated" person to explain a concept to the "uneducated" using the uneducated person's paradigm. Not the other way around. The onus is on the person with the Truth to walk a mile in the other person's shoes in order to help them see the Truth.
To do that requires both subject knowledge and people knowledge. I would suggest that many scientists would be helping themselves and their colleagues if they cultviated the latter.
posted
What I can't understand that such a man as Mr. Card seems to totally understand racism, and pressure from a group to be what they want to be, that why can't he just be "live and let live" about gays ?
Posts: 17 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, so allowing this authoritative source into the argument, you would allow me to cite it as well?
Yes, but not as a final authority.
quote:The fact that selfish and selfless are linquistic modifications of the term "self" is obvious. That the empirical definition (from your source) of "selfless" is derivative of the definition of "selfish" would seem to return to the concern I posited earlier.
But my source did not list "selfless" as one of the derivatives of "selfish". Looking to the Merriam-Webster definition of "selfless" I find:
quote:: having no concern for self : UNSELFISH
Now, here is the twist, "unselfish" is prima facie derived linguistically from "selfish" (it could be derived from "self" in a two step operation, but it is not derived from "selfish semantically. Specifically, it does not mean the same as "not selfish". "Selfish" by the dictionary defintion means concerned "excessively or exclusively with oneself" or "arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others." Now if I choose to cook dinner for my familly, I am not being selfless. I cook meals that I would like to eat, sometimes in prefference to meals that others would preffer to eat but which I don't like. I also do it, in part because I am hungry. But I am not disregarding others. I cook meals in ways that will be more enjoyable to my familly than the way I would prefer it. In particular, I love fairly hot chilli (medium for Texans and Mexicans) and tomato - none of my familly like chilli, and my wife swears at me if I put tomato in my shepherds pies, or stews. A lot of peoples acts fall into this middle ground.
I would say that these acts are not neither selfish nor selfless, and would be inclined to use the term "unselfish" of some of them - but I am prepared to by guided by the dictionary on this. Curiously the World Heritage Dictionary defines "unselfish" as:
quote:Generous or altruistic.
So, while not act can be both unselfish and selfish, they can be neither. (Please note again that the common definition of "selfish" does not coincide with the definitions of "egoistic" or "self interested" as used in my discussion with Kagehi, as has already been noted.)
quote: You rely on an "authoritative source" when it supports your argument, but dismiss or otherwise obfuscate the authority of that source when it contradicts your argument.
First, I had not looked up the definition of "selfless", and nor had you introduced it. So my comments were both accurate and were not a "dismissal or obfustication" of the dictionary definition (which had not been introduced into discussion).
Second, I have been quite clear that dictionary defintions are not final authorities. They can be disputed so long as reasons are given for the disagreement. If they are disputed, you can rationally respond by saying providing reasons for accepting the dictionary definition; or you can rationally plead incompetence, ie, say that you are not in a position to understand and decide on the various reasons, so will simply rest on the authority. The later is what we do with Quantum Mechanics all the time.
So, if you have a problem when I use a dictionary definition, you need to provide reasons why it is wrong (which you have not done). If I have a problem with the dictionary definition, I have to provide reasons why it is wrong (which I have always done).
Finally, I find offensive your suggestion that I am being inconsistent or obfusticatory when I went out of my way to explain in what way dictionaries are authorities, and in what way they are not.
quote:Generally speaking, I disagree with your emphasis on the utility of terms. A well-posed problem is more easily solved than one mired in murk. Good solid root definitions can alleviate superfluous postage.
As I have been very clear about the meanings of the terms I have used; and as I am explicitly resisting an attempt to obfusticate discussion by equivocation, I'm not sure what your problem is.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Having spent five years in the Creation/Evolution debate, I can tell you some things you need to consider.
First, on numerous occasions I have proceded step by small step, and the creationists have agreed with my conclusions of each small step until they realised that together they implied the truth of evolution. At that stage they have suddenly stopped accepting all the things they previously agreed to. The step by step path does not work because the dogmatism with which creationists hold onto their beliefs is overwhelming.
Second, the problem of science communication does not lie primarilly with scientists but with creationists. It is the standard pattern in creationist (ie, all fundamentalist circles) that the more extreme veiws are never criticised. You can be thrown out of a fundamentalist church for believing that the earth is old, or for accepting common descent, and certainly for accepting Darwinism. If you express support for these views, you will be violently condemned, your Christianity will be questioned, and even those that agree with you will question your right to "place stumbling blocks" in front of the weak. In contrast, YEC's and even geocentrists are never so condemned, and are even admired for their "faith". This sociological pattern places an impenetrable barrier across any "step by step" process of convincing people to accept scientific evidence.
What is needed for creationism to end is for the few Christian leaders who are trusted by a significant proportion of fundamentalists to get up and say that the creationists are lying. The have to preach from the pulpit that Kent Hovind is a deliberate fraud; that the ICR builds its claims on a policy of deliberate deceit; that the Discovery Institute has built its strategy on deceit, and publishes lies.
Only people who are open to learning can be convinced step by step. And so long as the various creationist organisations can go around openly teaching lies without being condemned for it, the fundamentalist community will not be open to learning.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having been raised in the fundamentalist lifestyle, (and actually having visitied ICR's "museum") I disagree somewhat. I don't think that Creationism is actually as monolithic as you perceive it to be.
Nor do I think many of the "teachers" are as trusted as you think they are.
Yes, you went step by step. I think however you should Not have pressed for the final conclusion. Just stopped 3 steps away. And let it simmer. Maybe never actually take the conversation any further. Then, later on, something from somewhere else could hit them and it could make sense.
If their teachers are lying to them, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with being subversive to combat it. But your approach as you are discribing here is still way, way too direct for what I'm talking about. I suspect that the Land Before Time 1 through whatever has probably done more for the evolutionary cause, than any argument you could come up with.
Your logic is quite close to impeccable - possibly infuriatingly so (a compliment) and nearing the saturation point. But, you seem/seemed resistant to agree on a set of terms, rigorously defined, on both sides of an argument. Lots of blather and argumentation-correctness-sounding blither - something I'd call obfuscation.
Though I do appreciate your posts. You have no reason to be offended.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clod, you are not proposing any terms for me to agree to. I am trying to be clear about the meaning of my terms, and I see no point to the terms you apparently wish to introduce. But by all means introduce them if that will make you happy. Just make sure you define them clearly.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been the most entertaining of the many, many threads on Creationism/ID/Evolution on Hatrack.
I'm also very grateful to TC and AJ for pointing to sources I hadn't seen before.
I despair of resolution of this issue in my lifetime...and I intend to live a good long time. The problem is that, even as we see here, when intelligent people of good will and no particular vested interest in convincing one another (e.g., it's not like we are each battling for control of a local school board...) have this much trouble agreeing to the terms of the discussion, or the meaning/relevance of that which has already been discussed, my hope for resolution when the stakes are higher diminishes exponentially.
Ultimately, I have to say that I like AJ's approach because I think she has real insight into the mindset of those who are most difficult to convince of the value and importance of the science on this issue. If pressed to the point of defense of faith, they will naturally become intractable. If brought to a fuller understanding of some of the things they thought supported their case, but do not...and you leave it at that...for now, I think something important has been accomplished.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, From my perpsective, there's no such thing as a responsible, good faith biblical literal creationist. These are people who don't even respect the Bible (in which literal creationism is impossible). When they're willing to treat what they claim to be the central thing in their lives with such contempt when it disagrees with them, what chance would I have in getting them to consider other things that disagree with them?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perpsective, there's no such thing as a responsible, good faith biblical literal creationist. These are people who don't even respect the Bible (in which literal creationism is impossible). When they're willing to treat what they claim to be the central thing in their lives with such contempt when it disagrees with them, what chance would I have in getting them to consider other things that disagree with them?
By all means don't waste your time with them if you don't want to. The condescenscion of your attitude would certainly be counter-productive to furthering your cause.
For crying out loud, you've done all kinds of research showing that when on the "inside" humans accept things that those on the "outside" clearly see as cognitive dissonance. But you tell someone to their face that they are cognitively dissonant, and they'll deny it and yes, even die for it. They *don't* think they are treating the ideas with contempt even if you do.
AJ
Luke 1:37- For with God nothing is impossible.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I wouldn't try to treat with these people in a rational way. I'm also not KOM, to openly express my contempt in a putative expectation of changing their opinion.
But I'm not talking to them here. I'm talking to you and to others. You're saying that what's missing is an attempt to meet these people halfway. And what I'm saying is that they claim to venerate a book that they are extremely willing to ignore if it disagrees with their preconceived notions. The Bible clearly presents two mutually exclusive accounts of creation. I figured this out as a devout Catholic when I was 8 through reading the Bible with respect as something to learn from.
From my perspective, when people are unable to treat their central sacred literature with respect, it's a fool's errand to try to follow the course you're laying out of using halfway measures of compelling debate. If you're successful, in general, with people like these, the effect you will acheive is a hardening of their position.
The effective ways towards changing their opinions do not lie through rational argument. If they did, these people wouldn't have strongly held views that are in direct contradiction with the source they claim to venerate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christianity as a whole requires you to accept things that are cognitively dissonnate paradoxes. Free will vs. Predestination for example. The people I grew up with will acknowledge it is a logical paradox from the human perspective.
However in the eternal realm they believe God has it figured out.
I know too many 7-seven day literalists of high integrity, and impeccable scientific backgrounds. One is my own father. His best friend *in their fundamentalist church* is not a 7-day literalist. I also know science and engineering professors from major Universities that are 7-day literalists. Most of them would acknowledge cognative dissonnances in the standard Creationist lines. However there are a few (some of which have been illustrated amply in this thread, that *do* apply equally the opposite direction.)
Most of them, even with their 7-day literal beliefs, would much rather spend the day discussing the Crucifixion and Ressurrection which are far higher priorities of Christian Doctrine on their list.
They normally are considerably quieter and don't go around making broad proclamations or ludicrous scientific statements like the ICR nutcases, but you insult their integrity and they'll batten down the hatches, and get the boiling oil ready.
quote:If they did, these people wouldn't have strongly held views that are in direct contradiction with the source they claim to venerate.
Again, you on the outside see them as direct contradictions. You've got to be open-minded enough to be willing to imagine a world where they aren't necessarily direct contradictions.
posted
Banna, This isn't a matter of difficult to reconcile philosophical concept, but rather ignoring or at the very least failing to give much consideration to what is written in black and white in the Bible. If you're going to hold a strong belief in something like Biblical literalism, in order to have me respect your integrity, you had better have looked at your source thoroughly. In my opinion, your father's belief precludes this, so you can tell me all about how you think he has high integrity, but, in this matter, I'm not going to agree with you.
It is possible to have integrity in some areas of your life and not in others. However, in cases like that, people often tend to be even more dysfunctionally protectinve of the areas that they lack integrity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, That's absurd. The order of creation, the literal history is different in the two stories. The "open-mindedness" that you're talking about is a williness to reject the flow of time and causality in something they are holding as literal history. Coupled with this, when I've brought this up with people who claim to believe in Biblical literalism, they weren't aware that it was an issue. It's not like, in my experience, they've considered the contradiction and found a way to rectify it. They've just never noticed it.
edit: And it's hardly like this is the only example of something like this. Consider, for example, the "What about the other laws of Leviticus? Don't we have to follow them too?" objection to the Christian objections to homosexuality. There's a extremely simple answer to that objection that is contained in the Bible and is one of the most important "This is how you follow the rules." parts of the New Testament, but you almost never hear about this. Most of the people who claim to be following God's law don't seem to know about this incredibly important part of Christian legalism. Am I supposed to respect that?
I'm curious as to specifically which parts of "black and white" in the Bible you are talking about. However I don't think it's actually germaine to the conversation.
I'm saying that if you treat someone like they lack integrity the feeling rapidly becomes mutual. And considering that I actually agree with evolution and would like to smack you, I can imagine how a creationist would feel.
posted
Banna, The contradiction is in this, tell me when man was created relative to the animals? The two stories give two different orders. And, as I've said, the contradiction is obvious enough that I noticed it at least as early as when I was 8 years old.
And, as I said, I wouldn't use this tone when attempting to manipulate a creationist. I am using it with you because, in this context, I consider saying things that are true more important than being nice. But hey, I guess that makes you want to smack me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of people who believe that. I actually believe it. It sort of depends on how you define creationist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Literalist to most conservative Christians (if they actually know their theology) means the gramatical-historical interpretation. What the true meaning is, is what it meant to the person that wrote it.
Repeating things twice with different nuances to emphasize different points, was a common stylistic form of the day. See Leviticus and Duteronomy. Duteronomy is the "second telling" of the Law.
The second telling of the Creation story is more anthropomorphic than the first. The first telling emphasises God's omnipotence and power, the second God's unique relationship with man. Even the re-ordering of the second telling, does not necessarily abrogate the 7 days in the first telling. I believe that one is considered more poetic in the Hebrew than the other, also. The emphasis in the second, is that God created the animals for Man's enjoyment and use.
Some literalists actually argue for three tellings of the creation stories, with the first happening in Genesis 1:2, when the earth and that the earth was frutful and then became "without form and void" before the 7-day story.
Take a look at the doctrinal statement, one of the most conservative Armenian-type theological seminaries in existence, Dallas Theological Seminary. Most of the people there probably would consider themselves 7-day literalists. They are very explicit on their end times eschatology.
Yet, they don't actually have a lot of specifics on Creation events in their doctrinal statements.
Now other seminaries, do have explicit statements about 7-days. The Master's College and Seminary for one. However, personal experience with both, leads me to disrespect the Master's College for many other reasons of disagreement over scriptural heuristics besides mere creationism. Not to mention how whacked out their collegiate social scene is.
posted
And as far as disagreement with homosexuality, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not horribly relevant, since the concept was reiterated as a negative in the New Testament, particularly in Romans.
quote:Originally posted by Tom Curtis: I would say that these acts are not neither selfish nor selfless, and would be inclined to use the term "unselfish" of some of them - but I am prepared to by guided by the dictionary on this. Curiously the World Heritage Dictionary defines "unselfish" as:
quote:Generous or altruistic.
So, while not act can be both unselfish and selfish, they can be neither. (Please note again that the common definition of "selfish" does not coincide with the definitions of "egoistic" or "self interested" as used in my discussion with Kagehi, as has already been noted.)
If I may enter this debate, I wonder whether soft shell crabs could be considered both "shellfish" and "un-shellfish" at the same time. Also, if my family likes to eat shellfish for dinner, but I done't like shellfish, would I be considered selfish by refusing to cook shellfish?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, what made me want to smack you, is that without knowing him personally, you made a judgement on my father's integrity.
My father will not teach in church any more because of me. You see, he does believe it literally, when it says a teacher should have raised children who are also faithful to God.
I'm not. (The issue has everything to do with me living with my boyfriend and nothing to do with my opinions on creation.) Therefore he no longer teaches in church, even though it's something he loves and is very good at.
posted
I don't see how that's relevant to the part I judged. I'm not judging your father's commitment to his beliefs. I'm judging the responsibility and respect he brought to the formation of these beliefs. If someone reads the Bible and comes away with a belief in literal biblical creationism, in my oinion, that belief did not come from a responsible, respectful reading of the Bible.
Commitment is easy to get. Responsibility is much harder.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much do you know about Bibilical heuristics?
You see, with any of the liberal or conservative denominations, all you really need to know is the meta-premises. Most of which do originate from the Bible itself. Following those through, in respectful interpretation is how you end up in the places you do. I'm quite sure all of them read the Bible as responsibly and respectfully as they know how. To actually insinuate that they disrespect the Bible, even if you *don't* agree with their interpretation is highly offensive.
posted
The claim that two stories that can't logically both be true constitute literal history is not a matter of interpretation. It's not a matter of heuristics or meta-premises or any other big words you want to throw out to muddy the issue. It's a matter of wanting to believe something even though this belief is impossible based on the source material. I don't see how this is can be construed as anything but disrespectful to the source material, and I don't see how you've offered me any reason to see it as not disrespectful.
And, for the purposes of discussing the actual point of contention here, can we stipulate that I'm a bad person who is arrogant and highly offensive and whatever else you want to say about me?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I don't think you are a bad person. However, your method of communication, is one that would cause most of the fundamentalist Christians that I know to disregard you before you said more than a few sentences.
quote: The claim that two stories that can't logically both be true constitute literal history is not a matter of interpretation. It's not a matter of heuristics or meta-premises or any other big words you want to throw out to muddy the issue.
*shrug* These people believe in literal ressurection from the dead too. Horrors! You can find more inconsistencies in the accounts of who saw Jesus when after his ressurection than you have in the first two chapters of Genesis.
There are tons of inconsistencies in the Bible, which leave loads of lattitude for interpretation, literally or more figuratively. Heuristics (I'm amazed Squicky is yelling at me about using a big word) is precisely, what Biblical theology is all about. And at some points most theologians, even many of the liberal ones, accept certain cognitive dissonances because of faith. Believing in ressurection from the dead is a cognative dissonance.
posted
No it's not. Resurrection of the dead is a case of divine power impinging on the normal order of things. Saying that two stories, one that has X come before Y and the other that has Y come before X, are both true and represent literal history is just wrong.
This is not a matter of intrepretation or of inconsistencies in the accounts. Heuristics don't enter into it. It's not at all complicated. It's a matter of there being two separate stories with very deliberate accounts of when things occured that don't agree with the order that things occured in. Which is perfectly fine for most things because the larger points are in accordance, but it really doesn't wok when you are trying to claim that both of them happened in a literal historical sense.
There are pretty specific rules that are in place if we assume a unidirectional flow for tiem and causality. One of these is that for any two events separated by time, one must occur before the other. Literal biblical creationism violates this rule because it claims in one version that one event that occurs before another event and in another version that this event occurs after that same event. They can't both logically be true. Nothing you have offerred changes this fundamental aspect of the situation.
And this isn't a matter commanded by faith. We are not told in the Bible: The two versions of creation are literally true. It is a choice made by the believer or community to see it this way. It comes from outside the Bible. Also, as this particular interpretation is contradicted by the Bible, I can't see it coming from a place this is not disrespectful of the Bible.
---
edit: I'll state again, this isn't the tone I would use when dealing with Christian fundamentalists. I deal successfully with people that I know are wrong or don't have much respect for all the time. However, I also, for the reasons I'm outlining here, would not do as you are suggesting and expect that rational appeals would avail me any better.
Also, I'm not complaining about your word choice, but rather your introduction of irrelevant "fancy word" topics instead of addressing the rather simple central point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky, your problem with Genesis 2 has everything to do with what will always be a somewhat inadquate translation of Hebrew verb tenses into English. I'm quite frankly surprised that that is what you are complaining about, because that is one of the dumber arguments I've ever heard, and a bit of research even from non 7-day literalist theologians is all that is necessary. I'm not doing it for you.
You've got far, far more of a case with ressurection account discrepancies than you do with Genesis 2.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
God is outside time. The unidirectional flow for time and causality, puts limitations on an omnipotent, onminicent God that few but the LDS could accept (and I don't know if this is actually an area where the LDS would accept it either)
quote:Mr Squicky, your problem with Genesis 2 has everything to do with what will always be a somewhat inadquate translation of Hebrew verb tenses into English. I'm quite frankly surprised that that is what you are complaining about, because that is one of the dumber arguments I've ever heard, and a bit of research even from non 7-day literalist theologians is all that is necessary. I'm not doing it for you.
Really, because I consider myself somewhat well versed in Genesis theology and I've never come across that suggestion. For that matter, I don't see how verb tense confusion could change either one of the stories around such that the order of creation could be reversed. In one, the creation of some of the animals happened on a previous day from the creation of man and the narrative introduces the creation of the other animals on the same day but before the creation of man. In the other, Adam is pretty clearly created first and the animals created after as possible companions, as Adam would otherwise be lonely. But since you're not going to do that work for me (or looking at it another way, substantiate your claims), so we'll leave it there, I guess.
quote:God is outside time.
Yes, but history on the other hand, is not. If it were, it wouldn't be history.
quote:Heuristics *is* the topic *inherent* in creationism. It is not a fancy word, it is an accurate and precise term for exactly the topic at hand.
I'm not familiar with that usage. Could you explain how this is the case? I mean, is it like Eschatology, such that the study of creation is called Heuristics?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, See the NIV for one example of tense issues:
quote:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
posted
Yeah... no reason why God couldn't say that on Day 6 after he paraded the animals past Adam. It's clear he made Adam first... then Eve... in order to make a specific point to Adam to value the female of his species.
heuristic n : a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of solving some problem
Heuristics are constantly applied in developing theological frameworks for Biblical interpretation.
Hermenutics, a closely related field, is the act interpreting the information in light of that heuristic theological framework.
Both are *inherent* in any systematic interpretation of the Bible be it liberal or conservative.
posted
Yes, and in order to accept that interpretation of that specific constructed series of words, you just have to believe that they used a "flashback" narrative structure that is otherwise not found in the Genesis accounts. Again, it's not what's there. It's what people want to be there and force in, despite the fact that it doesn't fit.
---
Look, I get it. I said something bad about your Dad. I'm running out of ways to keep making the same point.
edit: Yes, I get that heuristics are used to intrepret the Bible. And I think I get what you're saying here. I guess my response would be that the heuristic "The creation stories are literally true." springs from extra-Biblical source and is directly contradicted by the Bible. In addition, the extreme stretching that you have to do to get these passages look like something that supports the literal creationism adds things that don't fit with the surrounding material and have no other purpose than to justify the literal creationist reading.
posted
Squicky, it doesn't start with Genesis 1 at all. It starts with the Gospels. If you choose to believe that a man, Jesus, that called himself God was literally ressurected, then you have to decide what else in the Bible is literally true. There are various heuristics for doing so. But the one that leads to 7-day creationism, is not that difficult to arrive at. AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no compelling reason to take the Genesis stories as literally true inherent in the Gospels. There's no diminishment of anything in the Gospels if the Genesis stories are meant not as literal history, but rather as figurative accounts. Jesus himself made wide use of this technique in his teachings.
The idea that "I have to force this interpretation into this." as opposed to "Let's read this to get the sense of what it means." is exactly the kind of disrespect that I'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with leaning on other bits of scripture or even extra-scriptural sources to get a better understanding of what's meant by some section, but deciding "This is what I want this to say." and then trying to twist it to make it say that, especially when the final fit is very poor, is a very different thing. You're putting yuorself and what you want to believe before the supposedly venerated source.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
