This is what happens when one starts a thread called ‘The Lies of AiG’. Those who believe the counter-factual claims of AiG have to defend their beliefs against it and all it does is reinforce those beliefs. The psychology of that is self evident. But is worth unpacking. Converts are often zealous in their rejection of their former beliefs, as I have demonstrated in my somewhat unflinching proclamation of the rational. At least the position is stated… Perhaps we’d be better off analysing how we get to believe what we do, starting with our stories.
1 Like
Those are good questions. Jesus even discusses with his disciples why he teaches using parables. But it isn’t always clearly spelled out for us in scriptures whether something is to be read as “merely” a vision or as a historical account of physical events. Did Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones become an actual army? Does the lesson of Job become invalid if it turned out that was a moral or teaching discourse rather than a history about an actual individual? Back in that time, they seemed very conversant about learning from story, and while scribes and disciples in Jesus’ time seemed to have had a few ‘hiccups’ over this style (think of Nicodemus questioning over how to be ‘born again’, or the disciples in the boat speculating that Jesus was talking about actual bread-yeast) … yet Jesus expresses clear expectation that they should accept the higher spiritual lessons being addressed. Does John’s revelation on the island of Patmos only carry weight (the book of Revelation) if it is all literally true - even though not all explicitly labeled as ‘vision’?
I do agree with you that physical history is important. Christ and Creation do literally have to exist, after all, to even have any of us here to contemplate any of this at all. But I tend to think of our elevation of the literal/physical significance of narratives as being the primary (or preliminary) requirement of proof before we can accept them as God’s word is to do violence to much of scripture. It isn’t that thinking there really was a righteous man named Job prevents me from hearing the lessons to be drawn from that book, but if in reading it, my mind is preoccupied first with historicity, and then as a result I become disturbed by certain aspects of it which seem more like theatrical, point-driving narrative than a journalistic account, the result is my distraction away from the Truth the story has to teach. The more I read and ponder scriptures (both testaments), the more I am faced with the poverty of the YEC approach that binds scriptures into false forms and understandings.
There is something to be said about the innocent seeking of the straightforward labels “This is a vision” or “this is not a vision”. But by-and-large, if one hopes to mature in their studies and understandings, we are obliged to seek higher understandings as we are enabled and to discern lessons without necessarily having everything (with regard to historicity) spelled out for us. Scriptures themselves relate to us the anticipated difficulty many will have with this - almost as if to provoke us to jealousy and diligence in seeking it out … “for to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom … but to them it has not been given…” (Mark 13:11) Which is not a novel thought in the prophetic utterances of divine expression. (See Isaiah 6:10) There are clear echoes here of the divine strategy to provoke our envy toward attention, perseverance, and study.
2 Likes
[quote=“Peter, post:160, topic:44489”]
These are just nonsense ideas
If you knew the science
what you have been told by
you do not have an open mind
You have already decided to believe
You have painted yourself into a corner and are fighting hard against reality
you are locked in to your position and have completely blocked off reality[/quote]
There were more, but I got tired of dragging them down here. Yes, you assume very much and have a highly inflated view of your own knowledge. I have yet to post anything much here because I don’t like to jump in calling everyone already posting liars, idiots, or deluded. You seem to have no such self control.
It’s not his knowledge.
Cherry picking lines out of context is another bad habit of the YECs. All you are doing here is avoiding the larger points of my post and taking things out of context. Your evasive tactics are noted.
Note that you are the one making the claim about a young earth. A claim which is contrary to all the evidence. Hence you have the burden of proof and it is your knowledge that is at question here, not mine.
Having said that, I am not inflating my knowledge at all. I simply know a reasonable amount of science, that is, real science. This is both through formal training and a lifelong interest in evolutionary biology. There is much much more to know than what I know already. However I certainly know enough to know that you don’t know what you are talking about, and that you have received your information from the liars at AiG, Hovind and others. We have heard it all before, its all on their websites and their bogus publications like the old ‘Creation ex Nihilo’ and ‘Stones and Bones’ etc etc, and their own faux ‘peer-reviewed papers’, and sciencey sounding phrases, and books completely full of nonsense and misrepresentations of science. I have studied this material I know that it is wrong and why, and it is all that I have heard from you so far. Therefore I feel completely justified in everything I have said.
If you can demonstrate that you know the actual science, then I am happy to discuss it with you. I have no issue with you personally Patrick, I am sure you are probably a nice guy and quite intelligent, and are passionate about knowing the truth - I respect that. However, if you are going to go out of your way to push these views, and you have not bothered to check your facts with the actual science, then you are going to have to accept the criticisms that will come. All I ask of you, indeed challenge you to do, is go and learn the real science. Surely this is well within your capabilities?
If you do not do that, then this is simply evidence of willful ignorance. Is that the criticism you want to receive?
Let’s do it this way, Pete. When you post to me, deal with facts or my post. If you want to talk about me or the extent of my knowledge, you can talk to a wall because if I can’t mute you, I can ignore you.
It would help if you actually posted some facts for us to deal with. I’m seeing a lot of name-calling and broad generalities, but little in the way of substance.
Are there any specific points that people are making where you don’t think they are getting their facts straight?
Or are there any specific examples of evidence that you think we should consider?
Or is there anything specific about scientific methodology that either you don’t understand or you think we don’t understand?
3 Likes
Thank you for those clarifying questions, @jammycakes.
The purpose of this forum is to ask questions and discuss, so maybe the approach of “get your facts straight and come back later” may be fine to consider for some contexts but isn’t the purpose of this forum. It’s kind of like turning people away from church until they get their theology straight; what motivation would encourage them to pursue further theology and why come back? For the sake of the purpose here, maybe the practice should be to ask questions such as these and hold people accountable for what has been shared on their behalf. People can question their own motives, but voicing them for others is likely to build a wall and I think we’ve largely agreed that such an approach will cause people to double down instead.
I prefer to be addressed as Peter, thankyou.
I am happy to deal with facts, once you present one. As yet you haven’t done so. All you have done is make wild, and incorrect assertions without any evidence. If you don’t like hearing the truth then sure, you can ignore me, but if you are interested in honest discussion and learning something, why not try a different approach? Why not bring some actual science to us instead of the YEC nonsense you been peddling? Then we can converse in a meaningful and productive manner. I hope you can see that all I want is for you to come to the party here.
However, my approach to you is somewhat out of step with the general consensus at BioLogos. My demand for you to actually know what you are talking about before engaging in a detailed discussion is seen by several people here as a hard line that is more likely to alienate you and make you dig in even harder. While I disagree with this, I am happy at this point to yield the floor to those who would take a softer, more graceful approach. So from here, I will only involve myself further if you decide to come back to me at some future point with a proper understanding of the science as I have detailed elsewhere.
Until then.
Peter
Hi Paige,
I totally respect your approach and your desire to remind us of the purpose of the forum.
However, the parallel you have drawn in your example of turning people away from church until they get their theology straight is not a good fit here. Think of it like this, if you had someone come into your church, get up on the pulpit and start claiming that you have all chosen the evil religious cult of evolution over God and that your theology is all wrong, and imply that you are lost, stupid or corrupt, then you might be more inclined to ask that person to leave and find a church that best suits them, or at least ask them to step down and stop talking. You might even give them some printed materials to read, and ask them to come back when they have done so, in order to have a more productive discussion about your faith and theirs. This would be a fairer comparison I feel.
My reason for taking the approach I do is because of many years of dealing with YECs who, when they are at the height of their zealotry, are completely impervious to reason, to evidence and to facts. I have seen many attempts at graceful dialog fail always for the reason that to them, you are the deluded one, and they are here to change you. Unless they are prepared to do the work and learn what we have learned about science and evolution, there really is no common ground for us to discuss anything. All we will ever do is talk past each other. My approach therefore is to simply stop the conversation getting into details and fighting over stuff we can never agree on, because the other person simply does not have the requisite knowledge. It is the same as a witch doctor arguing with a modern medical doctor - there is simply no point.
Yes, that parallel is not the best. I intended it to mean that certain approaches will hinder some from continuing with an open mind and they likely won’t feel truly welcome to respond back later.
I hope @Patrick_S finds the resources that answer his questions and encourages him with a way forward when his assumptions are challenged.
1 Like
That is a great paper, but the subtitle should be “Hoisted by their own petard”.
1 Like
Hey … if things get out of hand, we can do what we need to do; it isn’t as if the moderators have gone away. So meanwhile, you and @Patrick_S feel free to carry on. I too think that your request to know which facts are in question is right on. The sooner those are on the table to work with, the better. If taunters and hecklers from the sidelines want to jump in with name calling, I’ll be happy to ‘clear the floor’ of them. Patrick is the [most recently joined] guest here who I think it’s safe to say is not on ‘home turf’. So I also make no apologies if he gets some extra latitude in that.
So please … anybody (and especially Patrick) bring on any and all facts!
3 Likes
Sorry, I really meant them as good-natured pokes, but couldn’t realistically have expected them to be taken that way. The wording was set up too temptingly for me to resist. 
You have been ignoring some facts, though. Specifically the Hawaiian island chain and the Kaibab Uplift, in my case.
Repeating another fact ignored:
What an absolutely lovely charitable thought, Christy. Thank you
1 Like
I’ve always thought the Christian teaching about forgiveness was sound for atheists as well.
Not that it’s necessarily a “Christian” teaching. Other philosophies/religions teach much the same thing… but still… the stuff about forgiveness in the Gospels is good advice. No matter what you believe.
And as for “atheist forums”… forget it. I used to ridicule religion for the fact that a “factual disagreement” meant splintering off into different “irreconcilable sects.” I always assumed atheist communities would be somehow “above that.” After all, there is no dogma in atheism to serve as such a point of contention. Therefore, splintering into sects should just be a religious thing, right?
Turns out I was wrong.
4 Likes
And…right on cue, here we are.
And I know, I know. Points off for quoting myself. It’s kinda like when professional athletes or showbiz types refer to themselves in the third person in an interview. That gets on my nerves a bit.