How can we approach gracious dialogue to counter science cynicism?

Hi Daniel,
I am sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I am very new to the forum and have not had time to read many of the feeds. I guess the online nature of the forum can sometimes bring out the worst in people, even in spite of the reminder at the top of page that the dialogue should always be gracious. Do you also read the articles on the main BioLogos site? Hopefully they are more gracious than the open forum.

What has drawn you to, and what keeps you reading the BioLogos forum?

1 Like

I have personally appreciated your kindly and knowledgeable discourse, @Daniel_Fisher, in many varied topics; as I am sure many others on this board have. Thank you for your deep history and perspective, both theological and science-loving. We haven’t agreed on everything, but we can focus on God, which is most important; and sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron. I am sure we will learn more from you as time goes on. God bless.

3 Likes

Amen! I’ve benefited from hearing Daniel’s thoughts, even if we disagree on some science topics. :slight_smile:

1 Like

True. We need Daniel and his tribe to keep us honest and help us examine flaws in our thinking, of which there are many. There is certainly a difference between vigorous disagreement (which should be expected) and rudeness, and I apologize if I have failed to recognize the latter in myself or others. We can always do better.

1 Like

Michelle, thank you for asking… What had drawn and kept me here is that I never like embracing ideas without having them challenged or unexamined, and I value second opinions of those who can sharpen or challenge my ideas. I want to know what is true, not what affirms my current beliefs. This is true about the two things I find most engaging, Bible/theology and science, and so of course, their overlap as well. But frankly I think I reached my limit on the “age of patriarchs” thread, and probably would have just disappeared if not for my promise to @Randy that eventually I’ll get back to him re the inerrancy discussion.

I was a bit dumbfounded. I thought I was clear, that I had heard of the creationist perspective of declining ages due to postdiluvian changes, but I wanted to hear any and every other hypothesis. The phenomenon (in the text) of large ages, and their precipitous decline, fascinated me from the time I was a child, and I remember discussing it with my a Father when I was around 5. If it doesn’t in fact reflect real ages, as I assume many here believe, the phenomenon is still there, and I was (and am) very interested in what literary, cultural, or other any explanation there is. If hat seems a very legitimate inquiry. I’d heard the creationist perspective, but in what I thought simple scientific/critical fashion, I wanted to seriously consider and explore all possible hypotheses. There simply was nothing about this request that should have been controversial.

But even with such a seemingly benign proposal for discussion, I found myself continually defending my motives from the assumptions or accusations that I was seeing something in the text that simply wasn’t there due to my need to make the evidence fit my ulterior creationist agenda.

And so it felt to me that many felt far too eager to pounce on a suspected creationist idea and undermine it. I was specifically asking about literary or historical development of a phenomenon I saw in the text… but apparently, because I dared to notice this textual/ mathematical phenomenon, this was enough to be guilty of harboring a hidden creationist agenda.

If interesting to you for your discussion here, I found the same frustration when discussing brain size and intelligence. Obviously our brains seem quite optimized for the size they are, and if I understand rightly, there seems to be at least some correlation of size and intelligence within humans (though I note that correlation ≠ causation, factors such as nutrition, etc., could underlie both). And, personally absolutely fascinating to me, is the fact that many extremely diminutive humans like Jyoti Amge seem to have no cognitive difficulty with their stunningly small brains. Speech, vocabulary, reading and auditory comprehension, etc., seem within the realm of normal human, in a brain somewhere about 1/4 of normal size if not smaller. Not to mention the “hobbit” species that apparently had similar intelligence to us moderns with around 1/3 to 1/2 the brain size or so, as I recall.

And I thought that would be worth discussing, and again, relatively benign, as well… that these would have been facts relevant to the the core question of just how much brain size or cranial capacity was necessary for intelligence in human development or evolution. But I would have thought I had been defending a flat earth from the responses I received. Perhaps because it was perceived I was skeptical due to creationist or ID-sympathizing reasons or the like, or trying to undermine evolutionary theory? It baffles me, I was simply hypothesizing that humans could theoretically have evolved from a HCLCA and developed our modern intelligence even while maintaining a smaller brain. That seems at least a reasonable hypothesis, consistent with available facts. But I felt anathema for even suggesting such. And ID-sympathizer that I am, this wasn’t even remotely an argument against the Darwinian paradigm.

To get back to your core question, I personally think there will be progress and gracious dialogue when everyone on all sides are genuinely willing to explore all evidence, and be willing to pursue any reasonable explanation, and be willing to question our own systems. These experiences, where I tried to discuss I something I thought relatively benign and more for my own simple interest, felt like they garnered a “circle the wagons” reaction to defend a paradigm against the slightest perception of a criticism. This, on my side, does not seem to lead to gracious dialog from this evolution skeptic that generally loves to discuss the ideas and science and facts involved.

On the other hand, this Christian certainly does not feel able to dialogue openly about even basic benign facts of science or biblical text for fear of being ostracized by those within the “scientific” community.

So if I might be so bold to reword and answer your earlier questions…

  1. Personally, I think much attributable to methodological naturalism. I’d be willing to explain further if you are interested, but adherence to that principle continues to dumbfound me even among the main Biologos articles. Philosophically, it is simple question-begging, to exclude certain otherwise logically valid potential conclusions from permissible consideration at the outset of an investigation. As such, it seems to me… anything that smells of someone proposing anything but a strictly naturalistic explanation for some phenomena is met with complete cynicism and complete dismissal. It is one thing to argue against an idea, another to dismiss an idea entirely as unworthy of discussion.

  2. Be willing to acknowledge the scientific or rational reasons others have for their alternate convictions, rather than attributing their different beliefs automatically to problematic philosophical or religious reasons. Much (though certainly not all) argument I’ve encountered here against ID is a version of what CS Lewis called “Bulverism.” Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ as he noted, “you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.” Note there is a subtle difference between this and #1 above… it is certainly appropriate to examine the stated and explicitly affirmed presuppositions or methods to see if they be problematic to scientific inquiry, but we ought not dismiss an idea because of what we believe about our opponent’s beliefs.

  3. “Seek first to understand, then be understood”, is a great principle for constructive dialogue. I personally have seen ID proponents dismissed, when clearly their critic did not read, grasp, or give the argument anything like a fair hearing, and thus the criticism entirely misses the point. Granted, I’ve seen this on the other side as well.

4 Likes

I am. But perhaps on another thread as you may have interest or time. That is a topic that is perennially revisited here, and rightly so.

For what it’s worth, I think you’ve shown exemplary patience among what many would probably think of as a critical, if not hostile audience for some of the views discussed. And I think we also must plead guilty as charged regarding having “hair-trigger” reactions against what will often appear to be anti-evolutionary arguments of one or another kind. This forum can become something like a “Whack-a-mole” exercise in the minds of those who have had to repeat necessary refutations many times, and then inevitably some proposal gets the mallet in an abrupt, unceremonious fashion. This is neither to condemn nor endorse such “mallet action” (it is often needed and appropriate), but only to say thanks for the reminder that there is often depth and nuance to questions and objections that we may pass over too easily.

5 Likes

I really appreciate your approach here, Daniel. We should all be so humble in questioning our assumptions.

I see this new feed you started is growing quite long. I haven’t had chance to read through all of it yet, as I need to balance work and family responsibilities, but I’ll be interested to read more.

Thanks for your great reminders and helpful advice about how to be gracious as we have these conversations!!

1 Like

And if interesting to take a case in point… I’d mentioned…

And right on cue, as if to illustrate…

Yes, I could see how that comment would bother you. I guess we can’t expect everyone to play by our rules. Part of gracious dialogue probably also includes doing our best not to get upset by posts like that. This is the 1st online forum I’ve participated it. Seems to be a very challenging format for graciousness. It has been useful for me to try to put myself in the shoes of someone with the opposite opinion as me: imagine why they might get upset by my opinion.

2 Likes

It is difficult in a forum like this. Since it is a discussion forum, you should expect ideas you put out for discussion to be dissected, critically discussed, and strongly disputed. As humans, we tend to integrate the positions we hold with our egos or our being, and attack on those ideas cannot help but feel like a personal attack on ourselves. Those in academics are more used to attacking and defending positions and not only tolerate it but enjoy it. Those of us in other fields, not so much.

3 Likes

If my comments when read in their full context are offensive, then I will apologize. It was not my intent in those comments to suggest particular conscious motivations to people; OTOH it was clearly my intent to talk about how discussions of MN felt and seemed to me as a Christian. I note, BTW, that the tired old quote about Bulverism from CSL is sadly ironic, since it is specifically about the motivations of others and is, unlike my quote-mined remarks, openly hostile.

1 Like

Oh, man! you are taking back to my postdoc days: seeing people cursing, fuming and pacing in the hallway after a contentious conference session to “regain” their cool.

2 Likes

My point, perhaps not well communicated, is that we need to have a bit of a tough skin when we enter these discussions and not take criticism personally, because it is the nature of things in a discussion forum.

While we need to be courteous to one another in our conversation, we also should be accountable for what we say. After all, iron sharpens iron. Wood only dulls the blade.

1 Like

Good point, which leads me to wonder if there’s ever a religious group that takes things relatively easy in discussion–probably they vary a lot. I remember reading “The Chosen,” one of my favorite books–the Hasidim called the relatively less straight laced folks “apikorsim,” a skeptic or apostate who has no part in the life to come. Define Apikorsim / Definition of Apikorsim / Dictionary. Guess it rises from our innate human desire for exactitude–to blame a given group for that would be like blaming the dandelion flower for the root that produced it.
I remember Grand Rounds in surgery in med school, when the attendings seemed to think it their duty to harangue and heckle the residents in front of their fellows–thank goodness that wasn’t such a problem in primary care and internal med rounds.

I just listened to a FOTF podcast by Gary Thomas, who wrote a book with Evander Holyfield, who told him that boxers hug each other after a match because “you can’t take that personally!” Wow.

2 Likes

Yes, I agree with you, and your made your point clearly. It is important to be able to put away our egos, try to assume the best intentions of others, try not to take things personally and avoid taking offense. If feeling emotional, probably better not to post until taking time to think more clearly first and get into the right frame of mind. :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

Agreed. I think it also helps to realize most people are working on something and have raw edges. So sometimes what feels like a rebuke has more to do with the other person’s attempt to process what they’re going through. What feels like a poor attempt at good intentions might just be the best they can do at that moment.

This place really does a remarkable job if you ask me. I’ve never seen so much sincere honesty, good will and tolerance in an online forum. Religious feeling really does have an upside.

1 Like

Great point, and a good reminder to step outside ourselves and try to be compassionate about what others might be dealing with.

2 Likes

Folks like you make us all better people as well.

1 Like

I personally love batting ideas around, and I like nothing more than when an idea of mine is successfully corrected or refuted… this is how I am sharpened, and how I identify and jettison erroneous beliefs, so long as the attacks and defenses are about ideas.

It is the actual personal attacks on people or personal motives that bother me and I find shut down any constructive or gracious dialogue. If I’m being thin skinned here, someone can let me know… but certain kinds of comments don’t seem disagreements about positions, they seem to be condescending and personal attacks, attacks on motives and personal integrity… and I have little interest in spending time here only to defend myself.

1 Like

I agree with you, Daniel. I think in the thread about the decay curve of the patriarch age, some problems were:

  1. That curve was created by a guy arguing genetic entropy in genomes as a general rule. That was the whole point of the curve being created. So when you talk about that curve, those of us who have read the book are thinking about his argument, because he’s the one that created that curve and gave it significance. I do understand that you, personally, were trying not to use it that way, but it’s hard to divorce its use from its original purpose.
  2. The fact that you can fit a curve to that data was shown in the thread to be insignificant. Any random numbers generally trending downward can be fit to a decay curve. There was nothing written that required mathematical prowess on the part of the Biblical author to create a decay curve from the data.
  3. The data used to create the curve was cherry picked. It doesn’t fit a pretty curve as well when you use all the data.
  4. The data was different types of data - specific ages when convenient, average community age when convenient. Including John would have thrown the curve off, so average Roman lifespan was used instead, despite not using average lifespan for any other time period.
  5. Why do the ages have a general trend downward? It’s possible they are real ages, though we wouldn’t be able to prove or disprove that scientifically. It’s also possible that there is numerology going on that we don’t understand, so we simply cannot know the reason. The Sumerian Kings list has the same type of decay prior to the flood. I don’t think Sumerian kings reigned for tens of thousands of years, so I’m sure there is numerology going on. Again, I don’t know what that numerology is, so I can’t even really speculate. It’s just a complete “I don’t know.” But saying, “I don’t know” doesn’t mean I need to assume the reign lengths are real numbers because I have no other explanation.

I personally don’t think you had any ill intent in your questions on that thread. I think point #1 and point #2 above are the main reasons people didn’t understand where you were coming from. I know #1 factored into it greatly for me, and for that I apologize. I read that book earlier this year, so it was on my mind.

2 Likes