Yes, let’s keep it real which means we will NOT adulterate the Nullius in verba scientific method with anyone’s dogma. Whether Christian or naturalist dogma. It doesn’t matter what you believe if you just look to the empirical evidence and accurately portray it.
If dogma is the basis of why one believes something to be physically true then that is not a scientific elucidation of the physical - even if a consensus accept it.
Thanks Terry, article looks great, I’ll be sure to read it.
In certain cultures, even today, nudity is seen as shameful, and seeing one of your parents especially, being naked and not averting your eyes would be equal with dishonouring them.
some problems??? Story’s so ridiculous that when I’ve heard first time few years ago I thought it was some kind of parody
Not only borderline on parody, but some details had to be changed as well to fit the desirable narrative.
It makes me think that if they had to do that in order to justify slavery, then the Bible doesn’t really justify it, just acknowledges its existence, otherwise why bend some bonkers story to fit opinions they already had?
I sense there’s some analogy to evolution theory here, where people just bent interpretation of it in order to fit their own interests
And then we wonder why some people hate Christianity.
And then do you look at Darwin with an equal scale? How do you look at a person that proposes the more civilized white man will exterminate all the lower blacks within the next few hundred years?
Ok, so Darwin probably wasn’t a ‘nice guy’. By modern standards he was a racist, as was as almost every White person alive at that time.
I have no problem admitting that. What point are you trying to make? Other than Darwin not being a nice person.
Do you @marta or do you simply note the usual pattern of people holding inhumane attitudes that were prevalent in their time but go on evaluating the utility and insight of his work on its merits. I wonder if this is the “cancel culture” I keep hearing about. No need to engage the ideas. Just find a flaw in the man and toss out all his work.
Edited to note you already answered while I was posting.
Interesting in that Western culture has pretty much dominated the world, as you might say Darwin predicted, while at the same time, the world on average is probably a few shades browner.
I feel that “cancel culture” is exactly what it is. Sure, there were some real monsters in the history of humanity, and perhaps those really should be “cancelled”. But at the same time I see this pattern, especially on social media, where it’s enough to hold one unpopular opinion and you’re finished. Doesn’t matter what else you achieved in life.
Yeah, if Darwin was some kind of moral teacher, I would see some problems here. But he wasn’t, he was a biologist, and his discoveries would be just as valid irrelevant whether he was or wasn’t a terrible human being.
As I asked do you look at Darwin with an equal scale?
I would think it obvious why I originally brought up the subject of what Darwin said in a post on not accepting consensus as reality. But it seems that no one can actual discuss the sacred cow.
So would you say that the apparent abuses of the Christians meant that they weren’t “nice guys” like everyone else at that time?
Or does the whataboutism only apply when you feel the not nice guy is someone you don’t want to just condemn? I’m really just asking if it is a fair balance.
And of course when Darwin was writing his comment on the extermination of all lower blacks slavery was ended in England largely due to the work of William Wilberforce successfully codifying his morals into law. In fact when Darwin wrote these words slavery was illegal in the United States after the death of 600,000 soldiers.
There were way too many people evilly accepting racism but based on getting the abolition of slavery in England and the USA before he wrote these words would indicate a great number of people were against slavery - including white people.
But if this were a post on Christian racists I would acknowledge what is true as well as give the fuller picture if that seemed to be denied. Here all I get is whataboutism and the discussion never takes place on Darwin’s words and how they apply to accepting consensus or not.
I don’t understand what do you mean by this
And the sacred cow would be what exactly?
If you read @Terry_Sampson and mine post carefully, you would realise that wasn’t the context. There are Christians who commit abuses to this very day, and will in the future, no doubt. It was about justification of such acts.
Odd, you seem to be unable to address Darwin’s words about higher whites exterminating all lower blacks but have no problem falsely accusing me.
Do you think Darwin considered his statement about lower blacks to be part of his theory of evolution?
Not odd at all, @AllenRhoades , it’s all words here. Our tools for communication, that is. Those abstractions that our marvelous, magnificent, physical brains develop and work with to make sense of the world in ways those brains can process. And which we can then exploit to communicate in symbolic abstractions about our abstract conceptions of what is real.
Additionally it can be all about words used as means of control. Such as altering definitions enough that they are almost right and easier to argue against, which is commonly called “creating a straw man.”
You’ve had outstanding discussion from both atheists and Christians alike in this thread who understand what naturalism is and how a naturalistic grasp of reality includes the human brain’s ability to develop and use abstractions.
Yet you continually attempt to impose your skewed definition of naturalism, which you insist excludes the reality of abstract concepts.
I guess you see it as a tool that helps you argue against what you’d like to “disprove.” Except it hasn’t worked.
You and I are surrounded by a group that lives by “take nobody’s word for it” (your “nullius in verba” translated for us kids of blue-collar, working class parents who saw to our public, government-funded educations, which deliberately lacked a classical component). They are not easily fooled and won’t take (haven’t taken) your or my or each other’s words for anything.
You also redefine “consensus” as “group think on an abstract philosophy,” which is closer to the definition of “conspiracy.” That’s cheating, you know.
This characterization of consensus in science is simply nonsense. Again, you’ve had solid, intelligent replies form real live scientists here. Beautiful logicians who thrive on measurements and test results. < sarcasmfont >But of course, I guess, they couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about.< /sarcasmfont >
I guess you’re welcome to conceptualize the thinking of people you disagree with in such ways as group-think and inconsistent. But it defeats what you claim repeatedly to be your purpose in this thread: discussion. Certainly defeats edification and learning.
How does this equate? In science, you mean? (Otherwise you’ll need to provide quotes in context with citations of the leaders at Biologos accepting something non-scientific “as true being the scientific consensus”. No one in Biologos is looking for scientific consensus of the Gospel, for example.) It equates in science in that these folks understand how consensus is built in scientific work and how it is always open to revision as past work is retested and built on with new information.
Which is different from your characterization of it.
This is not mysterious.
What I meant by a fair balance is the view of a person, regardless of group, based on what they themselves say and do but NOT on their group.
I read your comments carefully and just read the article. I missed anything about it being other than historical. It is also unrelated to the OP question of consensus where I give the example of naturalism not being a basis for elucidating any scientific knowledge.
I try to stay away from or not dwell too long on sidebars. But since here do want to say real quick the the uncovering of Noah’s nakedness was that Ham slept with his father Noah’s wife. As it says later in Moses’ books “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.”
And that Noah flood is not global as the term whole world in the same book defines it as their region. And… see this could go on forever with nothing about the OP.
Actually I did. I noted they marked his outlook as typical of his time in a way that is generally though not universally looked down on in ours. If you are looking for others to note whatever it is you have in mind, I doubt anyone is interested in guessing.
Back to semiotics then?
No thoughts on this question though?
Foul! Three point deduction for illegal substitution of insult for reason.
I guess you may need to spell that out more clearly. If no one understands what you’re getting at, the sacred cow may just be hiding in the barn, out of view.
Good points. But I find all this mud wrestling leaves me feeling in need of a shower. I think I’ll leave the wallow for now.
I’ve never denied the fact that Darwin was a racist. You are avoiding context and the big picture.
Indeed. I need to just let this all go. There are other more fruitful and edifying (and necessary) enterprises in my life.
Why? The facts of life stand.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.