tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post5419573381599746764..comments2017-06-22T13:52:08.234-05:00Comments on Ambrosians for Critical Thinking: Creationism, Evolution, and the Pragmatism of Jimmy CarterTadd Ruetenikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09214374850799810077noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-23639820994042826212016-06-28T12:25:12.019-05:002016-06-28T12:25:12.019-05:00James defended the practice of alternative medicin...James defended the practice of alternative medicine. I think he would have defended creationism in textbooks. He liked the underdog views, for better or worse. <br /><br />There is a difference that I would like to draw out in a later version of this article. Old- vs. new-Earth is a useless head-spinning debate. Human-created global warming vs. anti-global-warming DOES HAVE moral implications. It ultimately has to do with risk management, and the question of obligations to future generations. <br /><br />To say that if you disbelieve old-earth then you are disbelieving the science of global warming, seems to me to be the same as what you are saying about the "if there's one error in scripture, the whole thing is false" argument. Tadd Ruetenikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214374850799810077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-26708883519485051152016-06-28T12:18:05.569-05:002016-06-28T12:18:05.569-05:00I agree! For the bible-idolators, there is a Carte...I agree! For the bible-idolators, there is a Cartesian problem. If there is the possibility of falsity, all could be false! I wish I could do more to argue against this view than to say 'calm the hell down.' To believe that the text needs to be as perfect as the Author, and what's more, to assume that the Author needs to be epistemologically perfect in terms of propositional logic, is a neurotic version of religion that, I have to say, requires more or a therapist than a philosopher. :)<br /><br />I really like the way you express it about uninformed atheists. Well stated! Religious people are sometimes critical of science because they believe science is intentionally trying to destroy religion. And they are right. Some scientists are trying to do that. Tadd Ruetenikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214374850799810077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-142905136280376242016-06-28T12:10:47.146-05:002016-06-28T12:10:47.146-05:00Yeah, I guess I am seeing this differently. The st...Yeah, I guess I am seeing this differently. The story is set up in such a humorous way that I want to press the absurdity further, and say that his answer is not helpful to any of the disputants. They will, as soon as James strolls off, whistling, proceed to start up the squirrely, spinning debate. Surely any definition of "to go round" will itself be circular, serving merely to prove that particular person's argument. <br /><br />I see it as a limit to science. They can spin around as much as they want until the find out what moral issues are at stake.Tadd Ruetenikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214374850799810077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-30344323998704531882016-06-28T11:44:38.585-05:002016-06-28T11:44:38.585-05:00I ran that idea by my theologian friend here, and ...I ran that idea by my theologian friend here, and she said, indeed, others have pointed out that Biblical emphasis can become idolatrous.Tadd Ruetenikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09214374850799810077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-74884944552362348222016-06-28T11:12:59.357-05:002016-06-28T11:12:59.357-05:003. Still a third point, which you'll probably ...3. Still a third point, which you'll probably like more because it turns things on their head :) <br />Atheist evolutionists can be as dogmatic as 6-day creationists -- let's say a bit less dogmatic, a bit more savvy. In the English-speaking world, they keep a very tight grip on what can get published, and what opinions are acceptable (nothing with even a hint of "intelligent design" on it, even if it is within the realms of scientific speculation). They do not tolerate dissent in their ranks, even if they don't really have an understanding of how life on earth came to be. They would like to have an equally powerful grip on school textbooks (I haven't followed that controversy, so I don't know who's winning). And the only serious opposition they get is from 6-day creationists, who end up being, paradoxically, champions of academic freedom.<br />So perhaps there is a practical value in having both sides!Alf the Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746206639569631166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-55896555908775624512016-06-28T09:34:59.311-05:002016-06-28T09:34:59.311-05:002. From the point of view of "6 day Creationi...2. From the point of view of "6 day Creationism", there are serious moral/meaning-of-life implications to an old-earth model. In this view, if the Earth is not "new" then the Bible is wrong, and if it can be wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about all and loses all its authority as a revealed text. Of course, if they agreed to your statement that new-earth is not needed "to make religion work," you wouldn't have needed to write this article. Only a (religious) change on how they believe the Bible should be interpreted will remove this obstacle; no matter how much science you throw at the issue.<br />On the other hand, many (rather uninformed) atheists understand Christian creationist (& intelligent design) views to be _exclusively_ tied to a new-earth model. Prove the model wrong, and you prove the Bible wrong and you prove those who believe in God wrong. While 6-day creationists are partly to blame for popularizing this connection, I suspect that atheist evolutionists like to push this view also, because it gives them a straw-man to beat up. Either way, I am beginning to think that only geologists care about the age of the Earth for purely "scientific" motives.Alf the Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746206639569631166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-24694707197351322112016-06-28T09:07:19.881-05:002016-06-28T09:07:19.881-05:001. Tadd, you read James as if he were trying to av...1. Tadd, you read James as if he were trying to avoid "allying" himself with one side of the other (which, true, is a stupid approach: "What side are you on?") But I think he is actually taking a necessary step for a proper, scientific resolution of the issue: Defining the question and the conditions for resolving the question. (Incidentally, the same distinction needs to be done when you ask whether the sun goes around the Earth or the other way round. There not being absolute reference points in space, "who goes around whom" is a matter of perspective if you don't define the issue better.) My point is, great story, but I don't think that James' point was "you can take any side you want, or better yet, no sides, unless there are moral implications to the issue," but "if you want to do proper science, you need to ask proper questions."Alf the Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746206639569631166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8010106328461981922.post-40887787864098345212016-06-27T12:41:30.374-05:002016-06-27T12:41:30.374-05:00"Bible idolatry"--briliiant!"Bible idolatry"--briliiant!khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.com