I could probably agree with that. I believe in a single standard of truth;
I will only believe in that which actually happened. I don't hold much
stock in touchy feely interpretations of various books. Those 'truths'
obtained in that manner are subjective, not objective.
>
>Take the Flood story, for example. Suppose it were to be -- utterly --
>without possibility of doubt -- disproved scientifically. A "good YEC"
>might assert, as I suspect Gish et. al. would do, that given this
>difference, believe scripture and disbelieve science.
>
>You, however, a scientist, can't do that. As I can not do that. I suspect
>that difference would cause you a great deal of turmoil.
It would. I see no reason to believe revealed truth which is objectively
false. I would say that the proof of revealed truth is that it is actually
TRUE. If something or some event revealed by a divine power didn't
actually happen in history, then we have been lied to. We judge that the
President lied because his 'revealed proclamation' in January has been
disproven by actual facts--semen on the dress. So why should we hold God
to a lower standard?
>
>For me, I would have little problem with the situation. It is not that I
>"disbelieve scripture," but that I study it theologically, not
>scientifically. If the Flood story is an allegory, so be it. If it is
>literally true, fine. It really does not make much difference to the
>point(s) of the story, you see.
But as I often point out, there are so many mutually exclusive
'theological' viewpoints (allegorical viewpoints) which can be seen in the
text one must wonder if we are not merely seeing our internal psychological
states in the theology we extract from the allegories?
>
>Now your second question -- what's the advantage of holding to a PC
>position? From a Christian perspective, I can see (for me) none.
I really admire a person who lives consistently with their views. And you
are being intellectually honest enough to admit my point that if PC is
irrelevant to Scriptural revelation, there is no point to being a PC. I am
not being facetious here!
No more
>than loving baseball and deploring basketball. Baseball "makes sense" to
>me; basketball does not. But I have a son who loves basketball and that
>does not inhibit our friendship! < G >
>
>Why do I hold to PC and not, for example, Howard's excellently thought
>out "functional integrity?" Or your particular (also well though out)
>synthesis of evolution (TCA) and a fairly literal reading of Genesis
>1-11? That's simple; what I know of science, and what I know of God,
>leads me to conclude that PC is simply a more reasonable position. But
>(1) this is a philosophical position, not a "scientific" one, and (2) it
>is always open to change/replacement as I study further. IOW, I don't
>identify my PC position with me, Burgy! I think sometimes Steve Jones
>(before I stopped reading him) equated his MC position (I never did
>really understand it) with himself. That made dialog too difficult to do.
I can accept your reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. And I agree,
one cannot equate ones views with oneself. Views change; our personalities
rarely do.
Thanks for the great example of intellectual honesty.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm