The Remarkable Conversion of Molly Worthen

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Okay - I finally finished hearing this one all the way through.

It was cool to hear her take on Lewis’ space trilogy. I’d never thought about that portrayal of Satan as being “the most disturbing” of all. But she’s right - Milton’s or Dante’s Satan probably had nothing in comparison.

[Terry_Sampson]

@heymike3

My biggest concern for Molly Worthen, is that while she is an exceptionally smart, knowledgeable and sincere person. She is still new in the faith and I hope the evangelical world doesn’t prop her up on a pedestal.

• If anyone is impervious to sychophantry, I suspect she is. https://mollyworthen.web.unc.edu/cv/

[heymike3]

That’s an impressive list of publications. I should familiarize myself with Apostles of Reason, this could be a serendipitous topic given my view of what reason can and cannot prove. It would also be interesting to gauge her response to Keener’s commentary on Acts 2:14-36.

My concern wasn’t with sychophantry, but the trials and traps you never see coming. In my experience it’s the thing you didn’t see that gets you or at least tries to.

[Terry_Sampson]

• Impressive? I thought so too.

@heymike3

the trials and traps you never see coming

• It’s the ones that I see that give me the most difficulty these days.

[heymike3]

But did you see them coming 5 or 10 years ago?

[heymike3]

“The Chalcedon Problem: Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism,” Church History 77:2 (June 2008), 399-437

Doug Wilson: The Controversialist

These are some intriguing tangents. My fundamental belief that reasonable people can disagree about the inerrancy of Scripture was my break from the Reconstruction camp.

[St.Roymond]

@beaglelady

I’ve listened to most of this, and it is quite good, but what does it have to do with science?

I suppose to a large degree it depends on whether or not you consider history a science. I personally lean that way a bit due to the research involved in really knowing an area of history.

[St.Roymond]

@heymike3

I was praying for some sort of warm and fuzzy, mystical intervention. And it didn’t happen. I just got to the point in August, where I thought, Well, gosh, if I am a consistent pragmatist, I have to admit that I have gotten over that line of the resurrection being the best explanation for the historical evidence we have. And if that’s true, I have to change my working hypothesis of the universe.

I love that last line – “working hypothesis of the universe” indeed!

[beaglelady]

@St.Roymond

I suppose to a large degree it depends on whether or not you consider history a science.

No, history is not a science. But there can be historians of science.

[heymike3]

@beaglelady

No, history is not a science. But there can be historians of science.

Archeology blurs the line

[heymike3]

@heymike3

My fundamental belief that reasonable people can disagree about the inerrancy of Scripture was my break from the Reconstruction camp.

I’ll add that being OEC put me on the boundary of that camp even when I found myself in it. Well sort of. I never really felt home there. Being charismatic also made me an outsider. Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but I was being taught covenant theology and reading Dominion by Covenant in a reformed charismatic church OEC was from a book I found by Hugh Ross, and the socialist stuff was from 2 Corinthians 8:14.

At some point, I don’t recall when, but there was a definite moment when I thought or wrote for the first time that reasonable people can disagree about the authority of the Bible. Even Christians can disagree about it.

The point though, and which I previously grasped, was that there was unanimous agreement at Sanai when Israel brought itself as a nation under the authority of the Law. Today we do not have that and it can’t be forced on those who have conscientious objections to the Canon today.

[beaglelady]

@heymike3

Archeology blurs the line

Most areas of study have a historical component. And astronomy is 100% historical; we never see anything as it is happening in real time.

[St.Roymond]

@heymike3

@beaglelady

No, history is not a science. But there can be historians of science.

Archeology blurs the line

That’s especially true now that archaeologists regularly use things like lasers and spectrometers!

[heymike3]

I am trying to think of an area of study that is evidence based that doesn’t have a method of science to it.

[Terry_Sampson]

There are several fields of study that are evidence-based but do not have a scientific method. Some examples include:

• History
• Philosophy
• Literature
• Art
• Music
• Theology

These fields of study all rely on evidence to support their claims, but they do not use the scientific method to gather or analyze that evidence. Instead, they use a variety of methods, such as:

• Historical research
• Philosophical argumentation
• Literary criticism
• Art criticism
• Music analysis
• Theological exegesis

The scientific method is a powerful tool for gathering and analyzing evidence, but it is not the only way to do so. These other fields of study can also produce valuable knowledge, even if they do not use the scientific method.

Here are some more details about each of these fields of study:

• History is the study of past events. Historians use a variety of sources, such as documents, artifacts, and oral histories, to reconstruct the past. They then use this evidence to write narratives that explain what happened and why.
• Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, and morality. Philosophers use logic and reason to argue for their positions. They also engage in critical thinking, which involves evaluating the arguments of others.
• Literature is the study of written works of fiction and non-fiction. Literary critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
  • Close reading, which involves carefully examining the text
  • Historical context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the time it was written
  • Cultural context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the culture it was written in
• Art is the study of visual works of art, such as paintings, sculptures, and photographs. Art critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
  • Formal analysis, which involves examining the composition, color, and line of the work
  • Iconography, which involves identifying the symbols and motifs used in the work
  • Historical context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the time it was created
• Music is the study of musical works, such as songs, symphonies, and operas. Music critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
  • Harmony, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are arranged
  • Melody, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are sung or played
  • Rhythm, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are arranged in time
• Theology is the study of religion. Theologians use a variety of methods to study religion, such as:
  • Textual analysis, which involves examining religious texts
  • Historical research, which involves studying the history of religion
  • Philosophical argumentation, which involves using logic and reason to argue for religious beliefs

These are just a few examples of evidence-based fields of study that do not use the scientific method. There are many other fields of study that fall into this category, such as:

• Economics
• Political science
• Law
• Education
• Public policy

These fields of study all use evidence to support their claims, but they do not use the scientific method to gather or analyze that evidence. Instead, they use a variety of methods, such as:

• Statistical analysis
• Survey research
• Case studies
• Interviews
• Observations

The scientific method is a powerful tool for gathering and analyzing evidence, but it is not the only way to do so. These other fields of study can also produce valuable knowledge, even if they do not use the scientific method.

[beaglelady]

@St.Roymond

That’s especially true now that archaeologists regularly use things like lasers and spectrometers!

So that makes it even more sciency that carbon-14 dating? Please show me the universities that list history courses under the science department. Have you enlightened any schools yet?

[heymike3]

@Terry_Sampson

These other fields of study can also produce valuable knowledge, even if they do not use the scientific method.

Did you write all of that? My guess was it sounded like a little friend of ours

[Terry_Sampson]

Our mutual acquaintance helped>

[heymike3]

The bullet points were a nice touch, but I had a hard time seeing how art is evidence based. Art history, yeah, but not seeing it with art.

[heymike3]

With philosophy I understand there is deductive evidence, but that’s not how I would refer to an evidentiary field of study which is based on inductive evidence.