The following is a rather lengthy response to a Facebook conversation of which I’ve recently been a part. Facebook told me that my comments exceeded my allowed space. So I’m posting them here:
My Comments
William Daniel Hello to all!
Alister does not have the flu after all, just a stomach bug. We’ve knick-named him “Fire-Bottom.”
Derek,
Yes, I remember your post. If I am correct, you composed that when you had a Creationist present a series at Cornerstone. Yes, I’ll admit there are issues with YEC. There are issues with all things supernatural from a naturalistic worldview. A couple of examples:
1. “Dead people stay dead.” (David Hume)
2. Virgins don’t give birth.
Depending on one’s persuation a few years ago “Science” proved the following:
1. Dads are unnecessary for child development.
2. Divorce holds no ill effects upon children and can actually be good for children.
3. Homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.
I have had two main concerns in this discussion:
1. Debate process.
2. The assumption that science and religion are completely isolated in their spheres of concern with little to no overlap. (This is the opinion of Stephen J. Gould.)
Concerning #2: Science and Religion actually overlap quite a bit. Science is a mixture of a priori assumptions and empirical testing. Religion is similar. The overlap of Science and Religion is known as Metaphysics, and despite the empirical data in both realms, Metaphysics is often laden with political ideology. This is problem for “both sides of the aisle.” My point here is that Science is not empirically “clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.” And Religion is not without empirical observation.
Concerning #1: Aaron, you said the following: “I suppose sin could slow down the speed of light, but do you really believe this is what happened?” (15th post, 4th paragraph). I merely paraphrased you.
I’m not offended by what you said. My point in bringing this up was to illustrate what I call the logical plurality fallacy. I didn’t think you were attacking them as people. The logical plurality fallacy (I don’t know if this officially or technically exists as such) is the grown up version of “Awe, Come on Ma! Everybody’s doing it!”
Here’s my attempt to explain it. I use attack in a debate tones, not emotional tones. In the grown up version there are multiple options x,y & z. Person “a” hold to “x.” Person “b” holds to “z.” In the debate x, y & z are all within the realm of possibility. Person “b” attacks the position of Person “a” …
by saying that there are a myriad of options available, why be so dogmatic. You should consider “z.” It is THE correct answer.
The attack here is not so much on the content. The attack is a rhetorical slight of hand, which does nothing to actually attack the content of Person “a” or defend the content of Person “b.” It is simply diversionary. Person “b” attacks person “a” for not being open to other options. The attack is two pronged: *on the fact that person “a” has made a choice and **that person “a” has chosen “x.” The underlying assumption that goes unsaid verbally, but is communicated loudly is that by choosing “x” person “a” is dogmatic, if not ill-informed. The heart of the fallacy lies in the fact that while person “b” makes this attack, he has in fact done the same thing as person “a.” (Again, that is if x, y, & z are all within the realm of possibility for the debate.)
The problem is that most of us do this sort of thing without realizing it. And, yes, Aaron, I’ll be the first to confess that many YEC’s do cross the line in calling OEC’s heretics. Again, my problem has never been the debate itself, simply this particular process. Personally, I’m very sympathetic to OEC … and to YEC. I guess you can call me agnostic on this issue.
On to other things. I’m going to respond to a couple of your points. You’ll know when I’m quoting you by
*”this method.”
So, here goes.
*”Do you find a Muslim quoting the Koran as a valid reason to hold their particular beliefs? Of course not!”
Yes, I have. Last night I saw a debate where the cleric defended his points by appealing to God. There might not have been chapter and verse cited, but the points are nonetheless appeals to revelation as primary justification to the “unbeliever” for the opinions held.
*”I don’t see any need to make anything of it. Animals are not moral agents and are therefore incapable of making moral or immoral choices. Personally, it doesn’t bother me if animals died before sin. I don’t see a problem scripturally with animal death before sin. I think it only becomes a dilemna when our understanding of original creation being “good” means that there was no death of any kind. If that was the case then why is plant death acceptable in a “good” creation but animal death is not?”
Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam’s sin. By world Paul means more than a future likelihood or greater propensity of human sin. “The whole creation waits with eager longing…” At least from Paul’s view the whole creation was put under a curse. In the actually genesis story the ground is cursed. The snake is cursed. The implication is that the whole creation is thus under a curse. Adam makes a garment of fig leaves, but God makes a garmet of skin. The plant doesn’t have to die for leaves to be extracted. An animal or human being does for skin to be extracted. God promised Adam death would result from sin. The weight of the drama tips the scales of awe in this story in on how unnatural death was to the Garden. From that moment on animal sacrifice is a regular feature in the Scriptures as worship. With Jesus’s death on the cross, animal sacrifices are no longer needed because the ultimate sacrifice has been paid. While Jesus did not exact a total redemption of Creation in His first Advent (a major reason Jews reject Jesus today), He began the process, which will culminate upon His Second Advent. This is called the “Now and Not Yet.” We can be forgiven “now,” but we don’t experience a revocation of death “yet.” The “Now and Not Yet” is of course wider than this particular issue, but it certainly includes it.
*”I believe sin did have an effect on many things, particularly man’s behavior and sinful nature. I believe the fall was a moral one though. This we can clearly observe. Man’s moral choices have effects on the physical world but I don’t see any good reason to believe that sin caused changes in physical constants. While we may think of some physical things such as friction as a bad thing, I am pretty sure it existed before sin entered the world. Just imagine trying to walk without friction. It would be impossible.”
Okay, let me take this from the bottom. I believe friction is a good thing. But whether I believe it to be a good or bad thing, I’m not that sure that I can say what “perfect” creation would have looked like. My point is that it–all of it–is only effected by Sin; I just don’t know to what degree. I looking forward to finding out in the Hereafter, as I know you are too. One immediate effect was the ground would no longer simply give it’s fruit up for Adam. It would be filled with weeds, requiring painful toil. Did the ground sin? Yet it was cursed because of Adam’s sin. You might say that it was cursed for Adam, but it was nonetheless cursed. I have other examples but not much space left, nor much of your time left. I certainly believe the Fall was moral—with implications far beyond the legal infraction of Adam.
*”In considering all of these issues I realized I had a lot of notions and ideas in my theology that I couldn’t really support or give a good defense or reason for. They were simply things I had been taught before and just took for Truth without ever questioning them. I think this is one problem a lot of non-Christians have with many Christians. I think most Christians can not give a good defense of their beliefs or show why they believe what they believe. Just ask some of the folks in your church why they believe the Bible is true and see what kind of answers you get.”
Bravo!!! I would offer a couple of responses:
1. Just because Phil can’t offer iron-clad rationale for why Porn is bad, doesn’t NECESSARILY (emphasis, not yelling) negate Phil’s decision to opt out of the magazine rack behind the counter at the Jiffy Mart. Of course over time I hope that Phil will develop his thinking, because doing so will make it less likely Phil will begin a porn habit.
The point is that the lack of a sophisticated apologetic does not prove or disprove a person’s point. A corolary to this is that having a sophisticated apologetic, while my opponent does not, does not NECESSARILY demonstrate the veracity of my point.
2. Related to the above on some things I don’t care if people can articulate the “why.” I’m just glad they believe them and do them.
*stopping at stop signs
*stopping at red lights
I’m not trying to be cute (I don’t have to try … I am … my daughters tell me so … lol) but I think the drive to have other people “think” can actually be an emotional cover-up for “I wish people would think like me.”
3. You’re wanting Truth questioned. By whom? How far? To what extent? In wanting Truth questioned are you prepared for the consequences for any agnoticism to follow? Here are a couple of points I’ve been accused of not questioning Truth on:
*Pre-marital sex
*Drug use
*Homosexual behavior (when I was 8 or 9 a kid that accused me of not “thinking” by not acquiessing to him in this area).
Perhaps these are absurd. The overall point remains, though. I’m not sure that we’ve thought through the ramefications of asking people to “think,” which is usually euphamistic for demanding people give up Tradition.
3. I certainly wish to see believers develop a more robust worldview and ability to lovingly articulate it. I get very frustrated at the copout that Christianity is grounded in “faith” not “reason.” Unfortunately, I’ve nearly come to believe that in our day Postmodernism will carry the hearts and minds of our people. Such that our people will wash their minds down the toilet and wipe their bottoms with their hearts. Sorry for the imagery, but I hope you can apprehend that both I am passionate about this issue and that on this point we are one.
4. Since half of the church I currently attend consists of the more conservative faculty and staff from both Asbury University and Asbury Seminary, I doubt giving reasons for faith is much of an issue. My center-left friends make the same point of traditional-conservative folks, but usually cease debating me after two volleys on a variety of issues on their own accord. But I willingly concede your overall point.
Alrighty, thanks for praying for Alister. He does seem to be somewhat better. Please let me know when you’ll be starting up your own TV ministry now.
Grace and Peace,
William
