why this is important

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

 

Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?

 

 

 

You said “I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on”

 

I apologise if I am still missing the point of your post. I’ve offered responses to the preamble and body of your original post.

 

 

“i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part”

 

I’m not sure what the difficulty is. Basically, my position is that those of us with any kind of secular upbringing have been, by and large, exclusively conditioned to think that the secular scientific models (Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry) are overwhelmingly supported by science – to the exclusion of all other ideas about the origins of the universe and the diversity of life. This conditioning is to the point where we are initially astonished that any rational person could seriously give any credence to the account of history as taught in the Bible.

 

However, once we arrive at sincere faith in Christ, we soon learn that the Bible is the highest authoritative resource of the Christian faith. We soon thereafter realise that some of the claims in the Bible are inconsistent with what we have been taught our entire lives to be true science. We have a number of choices; many reject the Bible and subsequently their faith, many try to offer imaginative reinterpretations of the Bible in an attempt to conform it to their confidence in the secular models, and some choose to re-evaluate their secular educations; subjecting the secular claims to closer scrutiny – rather than continuing to subscribe to the secular rhetoric regarding their models.

 

As someone who re-evaluated what I had been taught, I soon discovered that there is no valid reason whatsoever, to prefer confidence in secular models over confidence in the Bible; no reason in logic or science to have such a strong preference for one over the other. There are certainly lots of vague claims about how well secular models are supported by “libraries/volumes/mountains” of evidence, and how they have survived so much scientific scrutiny, and how predictably powerful they are, and how elegant they are etc. And lots of rhetoric about how creationists ignore these mountains of evidence and are unscientific etc. But when properly and thoroughly examined, I could find no logically-valid reason to justify considering secular models as superior to the Bible-based models. So I can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – without any legitimate, objective compromise to my scientific integrity.

 

 

“If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this”

 

For starters – we all have the same evidence. And if we creationists can interpret all this very same evidence to be consistent with the Bible-based model, then what is the basis of your disagreement. Have you found some superlative evidential support rendering the secular models beyond scientific question, or are you merely continuing to succumb to the rhetorical backstory pertaining to their ‘overwhelming and exclusive scientific support’?

 

 

“It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?”

 

No. We all necessarily make assumptions. And I don’t technically have an objection. I merely consider trust in the Bible to be of paramount importance to the success of Christian life. I think you need to be aware that a rational argument exists in defence of Biblical creationism that, in every logical respect, has equal scientific validity to the secular models. Your impression of the abject superiority of the secular models is causing you to question the clear teaching of the Bible. But the existence of a rationally defensible creationist position means that you can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – even when it disagrees with popular scientific dogma.

 

Okay Tristen, so if I understand you, your upshot is that you  think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms. From what I have seen so far, I do not think that is true. There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish (as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model), but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here. One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling. I have doubts that looking at creationist scientific accounts will end up being helpful to me. On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way? I am finding there are many facets of this issue for me.

 

I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your views.

 

 

 

You said “if I understand you, your upshot is that you think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms”

 

I find the phrase “just as well interpreted” to be highly subjective. How “well” an interpretation of the facts fits a model can be reliant upon the starting perspective of the individual – i.e. it’s a matter of opinion. My claim is that the YEC interpretations are rational – meaning that the conclusions are logically consistent with evidence, arguments and premise. And as such, creationist interpretations demand equal validity and consideration to secular interpretations. Rationality is the only objective standard since other measures can be influenced by human presupposition.

 

 

“There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish”

 

All scientific investigation requires that facts be interpreted. Interpretation is a subjective process which can be influenced by human presupposition. The creationist position is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism (i.e. from big picture to details). Why is it that when secular scientists interpret the evidence to be consistent with their own presuppositions, it is accepted as standard, but when I interpret the very same evidence to be consistent with my presuppositions, it is labelled “trivial”?

 

 

“as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model”

 

I disagree that your analogy reflects the debate. Insomuch as the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, the model should be considered rational. However, there is a difference between interpreting the evidence differently, and disregarding the evidence. In your analogy, there is evidence that would have to be disregarded as ‘invented as part of the conspiracy’. It’s not good enough to simply claim scepticism of one interpretation. You have to provide an alternative model to explain the facts.

 

I, as a creationist, do not disregard any facts. I simply reserve my right to question the secular-consistent interpretations, and propose a creation-consistent interpretation of the same facts.

 

 

 

“but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here”

 

But the issue is not about your agreement. Our opinions are influenced by personal presupposition. The issue is about whether a position is rationally defensible.

 

 

 

“One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling”

 

But did you consider that same “specific evidence” and “details” from a creationist perspective – or did you just believe what you were told in the context in which it was presented? Did you separate the facts from the interpretations and ask yourself if the facts themselves necessarily undermine what the Bible teaches – or did you uncritically accept the entire presentation as “incredibly compelling” without subjecting the claims to diligent scientific scrutiny?

 

I also have studied the issue at the level of “specific evidence” and “details” – and am happy to discuss any fact which you consider to be exclusive and “compelling” evidence of secular models. I won’t claim to be able to change your preference of models – because I cannot control your presuppositions. I only claim to be providing a position that is rationally valid; i.e. the conclusions will be logically consistent with the evidence, arguments and premise.

 

 

“On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way”

 

If you wish to be rational (i.e. “non stupid”) in your assessment of the Bible, then you will have to learn to foster objectivity. That is, you have to learn to consider arguments in the context within which they are formulated – rather than judge them from the perspective of your own predetermined position. With scientific arguments, you will need to learn to separate the empirical from the theoretical; i.e. separate the actual facts from the interpretations, assumptions, speculations etc. – then determine if the facts themselves are necessarily inconsistent with “Genesis”, and if not, can they be reasonably interpreted to be consistent with Genesis.

 

I, as a creationist with formal scientific education, would be more than happy for you to subject the claims of Genesis to unbiased scientific scrutiny. The key is to be honest enough with yourself to be objective in your analysis - by removing your presupposed biases before examining each argument on its own merits.

 

For starters, lets assume that it is possible for an intelligent, rational, educated, “non stupid” person to have a sincere and thoughtfully considered position, even though it happens to be different from our own sincere and thoughtfully considered position.

 

 

 

In summary, as there is a rationally defensible creationist position, there is no legitimate reason (either in logic or science) for us to feel compelled to align ourselves with secular claims that contradict the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

 

 

“I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you”

 

The only way to resolve the issue beyond innuendo (i.e. beyond claims that your preferred interpretations are “compelling”, whereas mine are only “trivial”) is to delve into the specific evidence. You indicated in another thread that you are reluctant to do this – and I don’t like pushing people into conversations they don’t want. But when you are motivated, I am happy to engage in that conversation – perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.

 

 I get the sense in our exchanges there is a continual miscommunication of some sort. I think you are misunderstanding a lot of what I am attempting to communicate. An example is this continued implication that I am employing 'innuendo'. I am not sure why all my 'innuendo' bothers you so much insofar as I am reporting how things appear to me, and not attempting to compel anybody else to that view. This is how it is from where I sit. If you are certain otherwise, I can appreciate that. There is a trivial sense in which, yes, I think you are mistaken. If I thought you were right, I'd have your position. I don't have your position so by default you are wrong. However, some YEC I know are among the most intelligent people I know.

 

As far as the details in question, I am not comfortable falling into the role of doing apologetics for evolution on this site. You may take that as a cop out, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but it is the way it is. i get the sense some things are on the edge at best, and having threads about the evidence I find especially compelling for evolution was something I considered, and then decided against having here. I also think it misses the point- it does for me.

 

 

 

You said “I am not sure why all my 'innuendo' bothers you so much insofar as I am reporting how things appear to me”

 

Innuendo frustrates me because it is a technical logical fallacy; it doesn’t address rational arguments and therefore doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. It also indicates bias in the sense that you are prepared to settle for innuendo in support of your position, rather than present a rational rebuttal to anything you disagree with.

 

 

“If I thought you were right, I'd have your position. I don't have your position so by default you are wrong”

 

I was not trying to convince you of the truth of creationism – only that it is a scientifically legitimate, rational position (and therefore you have a legitimate option available to you for trusting the Bible). None of the models (secular or Biblical) are verifiable to the point of warranting a rejection of alternatives. That level of confidence simply isn’t logically possible for any scientific claim – and especially for claims about the past which cannot be directly scientifically observed.

 

I have no problem that you disagree with me. But your disagreement seems to be based on an uncritical acceptance of the secular models. You appear to be under the impression that the secular interpretations of the evidence are naturally, intrinsically superior to any other; and that is concerning – especially when it impacts your capacity to trust the Bible.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

You said “I am not sure why all my 'innuendo' bothers you so much insofar as I am reporting how things appear to me”

 

Innuendo frustrates me because it is a technical logical fallacy; it doesn’t address rational arguments and therefore doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. It also indicates bias in the sense that you are prepared to settle for innuendo in support of your position, rather than present a rational rebuttal to anything you disagree with.

 

 

“If I thought you were right, I'd have your position. I don't have your position so by default you are wrong”

 

I was not trying to convince you of the truth of creationism – only that it is a scientifically legitimate, rational position (and therefore you have a legitimate option available to you for trusting the Bible). None of the models (secular or Biblical) are verifiable to the point of warranting a rejection of alternatives. That level of confidence simply isn’t logically possible for any scientific claim – and especially for claims about the past which cannot be directly scientifically observed.

 

I have no problem that you disagree with me. But your disagreement seems to be based on an uncritical acceptance of the secular models. You appear to be under the impression that the secular interpretations of the evidence are naturally, intrinsically superior to any other; and that is concerning – especially when it impacts your capacity to trust the Bible.

 

How can I commit informal fallacies if I am not making an arguments? I think you wanting to accuse me of informal logical fallacies when I have stated repeatedly I am not trying to make arguments has to be a fallacy itself lol... the fallacy of false ascription. Why am I expected to offer 'rational rebuttal' when again, I am not presenting, and have not presented, any arguments? I have not really presented anything that seems like it opens the way for debate at all.

 

There's no innuendo. There's no rebuttal at all, let alone rational or irrational ones. I was merely sharing my thoughts and struggles about something that affects me on several levels. Your interpretation of things I've written has not been correct. I am sure much of this is my difficulty in clearly expressing myself on this topic, but this much I hope is clear- I never intended this to be a creationist vs evolution debate.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

 

You said “I am not sure why all my 'innuendo' bothers you so much insofar as I am reporting how things appear to me”

 

Innuendo frustrates me because it is a technical logical fallacy; it doesn’t address rational arguments and therefore doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. It also indicates bias in the sense that you are prepared to settle for innuendo in support of your position, rather than present a rational rebuttal to anything you disagree with.

 

 

“If I thought you were right, I'd have your position. I don't have your position so by default you are wrong”

 

I was not trying to convince you of the truth of creationism – only that it is a scientifically legitimate, rational position (and therefore you have a legitimate option available to you for trusting the Bible). None of the models (secular or Biblical) are verifiable to the point of warranting a rejection of alternatives. That level of confidence simply isn’t logically possible for any scientific claim – and especially for claims about the past which cannot be directly scientifically observed.

 

I have no problem that you disagree with me. But your disagreement seems to be based on an uncritical acceptance of the secular models. You appear to be under the impression that the secular interpretations of the evidence are naturally, intrinsically superior to any other; and that is concerning – especially when it impacts your capacity to trust the Bible.

 

How can I commit informal fallacies if I am not making an arguments? I think you wanting to accuse me of informal logical fallacies when I have stated repeatedly I am not trying to make arguments has to be a fallacy itself lol... the fallacy of false ascription. Why am I expected to offer 'rational rebuttal' when again, I am not presenting, and have not presented, any arguments? I have not really presented anything that seems like it opens the way for debate at all.

 

There's no innuendo. There's no rebuttal at all, let alone rational or irrational ones. I was merely sharing my thoughts and struggles about something that affects me on several levels. Your interpretation of things I've written has not been correct. I am sure much of this is my difficulty in clearly expressing myself on this topic, but this much I hope is clear- I never intended this to be a creationist vs evolution debate.

 

 

 

You said “How can I commit informal fallacies if I am not making an arguments”

 

Logical fallacies can appear in any kind of assertion. They are logically fallacious because they represent a departure from logic – regardless of whether they appear in a structured argument. In fact, many are considered logically fallacious for the specific reason that they do not conform to rational argument.

 

 

 

“I think you wanting to accuse me of informal logical fallacies when I have stated repeatedly I am not trying to make arguments”

 

I am not “wanting to accuse” you of anything. I simply pointed out how logically meaningless statements are when expressed as logical fallacies.

 

 

 

“Why am I expected to offer 'rational rebuttal' when again, I am not presenting, and have not presented, any arguments”

 

But you have made statements pertaining to the legitimacy of one position over another.

 

I suppose – I don’t understand the point of posting if you are not prepared to follow through and discuss the issues you raise. And I don’t understand the point of responding to comments if you have no intension of even attempting a rational justification of your position.

 

 

 

“There's no innuendo. There's no rebuttal at all, let alone rational or irrational ones”

 

I have presented arguments, and you have expressed disagreement to my position, and supported that disagreement with innuendo and Unsupported Assertions about why you prefer your position.

 

 

 

“I was merely sharing my thoughts and struggles about something that affects me on several levels”

 

If you didn’t want comments, then you should have stated in your OP. I was merely trying to inform you that you have a rational option to trust the Bible – which I believe would serve to mitigate some of your struggles.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

You said “How can I commit informal fallacies if I am not making an arguments”

 

Logical fallacies can appear in any kind of assertion. They are logically fallacious because they represent a departure from logic – regardless of whether they appear in a structured argument. In fact, many are considered logically fallacious for the specific reason that they do not conform to rational argument.

 

This isn't true. If you went to the praise report section, or the prayer request section, and started looking for informal logical fallacies you'd be irrational. Perhaps it is confusing I have put my disorganized thoughts here in this subforum. I have plenty of posts and started plenty of threads in which I do offer arguments, structured or not, which I intended to be persuasive, and it would be entirely appropriate for you to analyze those in that manner. Or, you are welcome to start a thread that is intended that way and I may join in.

 

 

 

 

 

“I think you wanting to accuse me of informal logical fallacies when I have stated repeatedly I am not trying to make arguments”

 

I am not “wanting to accuse” you of anything. I simply pointed out how logically meaningless statements are when expressed as logical fallacies.

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

“Why am I expected to offer 'rational rebuttal' when again, I am not presenting, and have not presented, any arguments”

 

But you have made statements pertaining to the legitimacy of one position over another.

 

I suppose – I don’t understand the point of posting if you are not prepared to follow through and discuss the issues you raise. And I don’t understand the point of responding to comments if you have no intension of even attempting a rational justification of your position.

 

I need a rational justification for the bare fact that I have certain struggles? No I do not. That's a statement of fact. You are more than welcome to comment, that was never an issue as far as I'm concerned. I have no commitment to thinking your commentary is appropriate to the topic though.

 

 

 

“There's no innuendo. There's no rebuttal at all, let alone rational or irrational ones”

 

I have presented arguments, and you have expressed disagreement to my position, and supported that disagreement with innuendo and Unsupported Assertions about why you prefer your position.

 

 

 

“I was merely sharing my thoughts and struggles about something that affects me on several levels”

 

If you didn’t want comments, then you should have stated in your OP. I was merely trying to inform you that you have a rational option to trust the Bible – which I believe would serve to mitigate some of your struggles.

 

No. I'm merely trying to describe my current state of mind and some initial insights I've gotten into why I suspect there is tension there. It's clear to me I've failed to communicate that successfully to you at all. Insofar as I do not think I was very clear in my OP that much is understandable.

 

I have no desire to get into the minutiae of evidence for evolution here. If you really want to do that, you may need to PM me.