Audie wrote:Where do you think the path of intellectual honesty lies?
I don't really understand your question. Intellectual honesty isn't "on" a path. It
is the path.
I've read that article. I'm not sure what problem you think it shows. The fact that he has demonstrated he can practice science from within your
philosophical framework somehow counts against him? By appealing to Ritchie (who is every bit as ideologically driven as Snelling) you seem to be presenting Ritchie's own damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't "argument." For if Snelling were to write from an explicitly YEC perspective, there's no way he would be granted any credentials. And then you would condemn him for not "understanding science." So he plays by your rules long enough to demonstrate that he has a very, very deep knowledge of the subject matter, now he's accused of not being "real"?
You do well to be skeptical of "pop" science, which is what he does, complete with youtube.
And are you as dismissive people like deGrasse and Hawking? Perhaps you are. I don't know. As I've said before, I'm not a trained scientist, so it wouldn't do be any good whatsoever to try to read his technical material. My point is just that he is
one instance of someone who holds a PhD in science who holds to a young earth interpretation of the evidence.
Regarding whether there is evidence for a world wide flood, there certainly are things one could point to that, taken by themselves might well lead to that belief. Seashells in Kansas, say; I have found them myself.
As a larger picture emerges from studies all around the world ( you might well be surprised how extensively the earth's geology has been probed) one sees that a world wide flood simply cannot be supported by the evidence....
Says you. And why should I believe you? You say that a world wide flood can't be supported. Snelling, who has a PhD in geology, says it can. So, again, why should I take your position? Why should I put faith in YOU? Because the majority say so? You have to know why that doesn't work.
Possibly more to the point is that a hypothesis or theory can be, must be tested against all relevant data. If even one fact is contrary to it, the theory is simply wrong. As per Einsteins famous quote..
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Kind of like a single ice core showing an age far greater than any Biblical timeline shows there could not have been a world wide flood.
But YECs make the same kinds of claims and you don't take it seriously. You've just given me some popular science, the very thing you agreed with me I ought be skeptical of. So I see your ice core (and can point
to scientists who have disputed the claim) and raise you soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. You can, of course, link to attempts to explain how that data does not, in fact, falsify the consensus. And then I can link to counter claims. So who "wins" . . . the one who gets the last link? Again, that's absurd. I'm not nearly educated enough to study the ice cores nor am I educated enough to study the proteins on the dino bones myself to discover if it comes from a TRex or if it is a contamination. Frankly, I doubt you have that kind of training, either. But perhaps you do. In any case, if nothing else, that shows that your "one experiment can falsify things" is a bit silly. Sure, it is theoretically true, but it never really works that way.
How did that become a fact?
As for "true or false" is that 100%? Is an approximation 100% correct?
The statement, "Moses parted the Red Sea" is not an approximation. It is a statement that is either true or false. You've done well so far. Please don't run off and refuse to say things that are obvious at this point. To your point, though, 1 Ki :23 IS an approximation, and is therefore not wrong as written.
Sheesh there you are again, saying what I believe for me. I do not believe the 'bible is wrong". I do believe that an awful lot of people think they are gifted with inerrant reading, and that they inerrently read different meanings.
Admit schamadit, i have nothing to "reluctantly confess". I see the Bible quite differently than you.
You just aren't being honest with the text. If God does not exist, then it is wrong when it attributes existence to Him. There's no "approximation" here. There's a statement of fact. If your "view" of the Bible refuses to interact with what the text actually
says, then you aren't even doing any due diligence. If you want to know if Christianity is true, you have to know whether or not the Bible's claims are correct, and that requires recognizing what the text says. Frankly, I don't know why you are blustering on this. The text says that Moses parted the Red Sea. Specifically, it says:
- Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. (Ex 14:21-22)
So did that happen or not? The Bible says it did. Is the Bible right or wrong on this count?
Not all of the text is claimed to be inspired. And nowhere does the Bible say that it is inerrent.
I notice you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? In the meantime, you are wrong. The Bible does claim that all the text is inspired: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). So here's another example. Either the Bible is right that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration or the Bible is wrong about that. So which is it?
Whether the Bible is 'wrong" in any place depends on how one reads it.
No it doesn't. That is disingenuous. If I said, 2+2=5, that wouldn't be right or wrong depending on how you read it. It would just be wrong. Just so, if Moses did not part the Red Sea, then the Bible is wrong. You can, of course, insist that it is wrong as written and then argue that it's little more than a myth, and that myths can't be WRONG after all, since they aren't attempting to tell history. But that doesn't help you, because it is still based on the premise that the Bible is wrong
as it is written.
Suppose one took from the text that stars might actually fall on the earth. Its right there, that it will happen. People didnt know what stars were.
There is nothing "disingenuous" about observing that whatever might be the intent of the text, stars are not going to fall on us.
Stars falling from the sky is apocalyptic language. That was a genre well understood and intentionally employed
by the author. So, once again, eisogesis is always disingenuous.
Some things cannot be worked out by arguing the meaning of text. In the year 1000, say, you'd never get to the fact that stars are not going to fall on us.
I've never said that EVERYTHING can be worked out by arguing the meaning of a text. I said that the meaning of every TEXT can be worked out by arguing about its meaning. Again, your star argument is a good example. That's a well known example of apocalyptic language. If you had gone through the studies I have, you would know what that genre is and how to recognize it. The only people who are confused on this matter are people who have not studied apocalyptic literature.
Easy enough; it is unbiblical to say it is.
Then you disagree with Jesus: "Scripture cannot be broken." You disagree with Paul: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Of course, proof texts are easy, but there are very deep studies that have been done on this as well. I refer you to the
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and its related research. (
This book would be a good start).
This is not the yes / no, black / white thing you present it as being. Please do not speak falsely of me.
I'm speaking charitably of you. You say you are an atheist. The Bible says the atheist is a fool (Ps 14:1). Either you disagree with the Bible or you think yourself a fool. Or you simply refuse to listen to what the Bible actually says, which makes you contumacious. I could, of course, read you in the worst possible light, if that is what you would prefer, but somehow, I doubt that would be your preference. I'm only following the Golden Rule, my friend.
You are utterly unwilling to let observation guide your interpretation in any way shape of form? Surely not.
Go back and reread what we've already said. I've given you two ways in which observation
can be used to interpret a text.
not Pascals Wager, oh surely you didnt bring that in...!!!!
That's not Pascal's Wager. I'm very familiar with the wager, with the arguments against it, and with why it ought or ought not be used. You would do well not to assume that you know more than me about theology. You'v said yourself that you have no formal training on this matter. I've told you that I have had it. Do you really think that I would make such an elementary mistake? That's rather
uncharitable of you. You would do much better before you make such silly posts to say to yourself, "Hmm, now that strikes me as Pascal's Wager, but Jac is clearly not so uneducated that he would make such an obvious mistake. I wonder, then, where I have failed to understand his argument?" For on that approach, you could simply ask for clarification. You would learn much more than way. Again, you said you want to do your due diligence. So do it. Part of that will be learning, not presuming that you already know.
Lastly, I'm not one to wave credentials, but since you have so unjustly impugned me here, you should know that I hold three degrees, two of them master's degrees, in this subject matter. I have presented papers at academic conferences, and I have taught at both the undergraduate and master's level. In addition to that, I have over 2000 hours of clinically supervised work in which I have applied this material in a
clinical setting, my supervision coming from people with even more training than myself. I have also taught on the processional level on material such as the intersection between theology, philosophy, and psychology in doing clinical assessments of both acutely and chronically ill patients. I read Greek and Hebrew and can work my way through a Latin text, and I have two papers that are currently being considered for publication in peer reviewed journals, both rather technical.
I could continue, but those are some of my professional highlights. My only point it "boasting" is to suggest to you that you ought not assume I would make such ridiculous mistakes. And frankly, the kind of mistakes I would make are not the kind that you are going to be able to point out. I'm sure that if we were talking about science, the roles would be exactly reversed, and that is precisely why I would not challenge you on those matters. I'm sure I have far more than you to learn in that area of study.
I have a question for you in that regard tho. Would your God be approving if you attributed to him a monstrous act when no such thing ever occurred?
Read Job 42:7 and you tel me.
Give that some thought before you get back to me on it.
Why? Because you assume I haven't thought it through already? Here's a link to a paper I wrote two years ago (before I earned my second master's; I only say that to address any concern you might have for seeing only "M.A." after my name as well as to point out that not only have I thought this through, but I did so and have been using it as a basis for argument years ago).
The question runs deeper than that, and is far more important. The USA is in a disgraceful position with its horrible education system, letting itself lag behind so many other countries. Look at all the scientists and engineers coming from other countries to fill slots no American is able to fill.
Im going to get a bit rough here, but frankly, I see yec as a serious threat to the intellectual climate of the country.
I feel like Paul Revere sometimes. Yes its a digression, but there are all those millions of eager smart and highly motivated Asians who will not be the least bit sentimental about toppling the USA, and I do not believe any faith in any God is going to protect you.
I can go back to Hong Kong any time I like. What are you going to do?
Oh, please . . . are you really trotting out the idea that YEC holds back science? That's absurd. Do you know that the inventor of the MRI held to YEC beliefs? The inventor of TERRA? YEC scientist. I'm not going to go into all that. It's just silly for you to suggest that if you reject the consensus that the earth is billions of years old that you either can't do real science or that you will be hindered in learning it.
But because you raised it, in my view, what IS a serious intellectual threat is the censorship of secularists, like yourself. In fact, I know from my field that it is having an impact on people's actual health. You would do well to go to your local library and get access to Michael J. Balboni's article "A Theological Assessment of Spiritual Assessments" as a good example of what I am talking about. He holds a PhD as well as a ThM and works in the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Harvard, if that means anything to you). Again, a brilliant individual.
No, you're cool, you are not wasting my time. You may well be right about philosophical proof, and about hammers and nails. What, tho, of your own tool kit and
how you see things? Does it not apply also to you?
What if I am right about scientific disproof of said flood? Does philosophical proof of anything have a response to that?
I said before that I feel what i consider a tug, toward Christianity. Perhaps I could be persuaded or inspired to find that God, and Jesus are real as rain.
The way I see your particular faith tho, its not something I could possibly embrace.
If its a 3 legged stool, I am inquiring into the two possibly good legs, but I know the one made of vapour wont stand.
Of course that would apply to me. But my field is philosophy, and as such, I know, due to my field, how to distinguish between nails and screws. I also know that I am particularly well equipped to use one kind of tool, though not another. Beyond that, you don't know enough about my faith to know whether or not you could hold it. I've already said that everything you are talking to me about is really unimportant. These are secondary matters
at best. The real issues are the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Everything else is a matter of details. Rick disagrees with me on the interpretation of Genesis 1. He disagrees with me on Noah's Flood. But that's fine. We hold to the same faith. And if you held to the same faith as Rick and I, you and I could have a much more productive discussion about the age of the earth. But as it stands, there's very little we can say to each other.
As such, I then repeat the advice I gave to you before. First, get Feser's book. Second, spend the rest of your time on the philosophy boards talking about philosophical proofs for God's existence. And to add to that, if you want to talk about the Bible, spend time asking questions about Jesus and His resurrection. You do THAT, and you'll get much, much, much further. And please note the place that I'm coming from. On this, I am speaking directly out of my expertise. You can do with my advice what you want, of course. But I can tell you that if you were to get the same education I have, you would turn around and be giving yourself the same advice.
And, advice is cheap, so on that, I wish you all the best! Sorry you had to read this wall of text (assuming you managed to get through it).
And while he'll frequently claim not to care what someone says, nonetheless, he'll still respond with a gazillion words to explain why he doesn't care, while simultaneously noting how clueless you are with a remarkably snarky, snobby, snooty, intellectual-sounding, and always-clever dis. 
He's part mild-mannered hospital chaplain, part Rambo, and part pitbull, so engage him at your own great risk. 