Re: Why Christians Are Viewed Poorly

On 5/20/06, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Absolute truth is elusive. I prefer to talk about a line of reasoning that
> can be supported with data and evidence. What we can substantiate may be
> true, and what we can't substantiate may be believed, but it may or may not
> be true.

Dick, that's all well and good but that is on top of a cultural
environment that eschews any form of absolute truth. Over the past few
months I have been going back and forth with Janice about the
importance of not imputing motives. That advise is not just applicable
to critics of science. I see just as much if not more imputation of
motives going the other direction. The statement "you're not seeking
the truth" is such an imputation. Just as my hypothetical shows the
communication shutting down because of the false accusation it works
the other way when the parties are swapped.

So, before you get to what Dick is proposing a fairly large amount of
good will needs to be generated first. The first step is to take
claims by conservative Christians that they are seeking the truth at
face value.[Please note: I am not saying Dick isn't doing this.]

New hypothetical. A conservative Christian who believes in ID and is
concerned about his children's education and a theistic evolutionist:

CC: I'm concerned about that my children are being taught atheism in
their science class.

TE: The NCSE says that evolution is not a threat to religious people
and look at this survey of pastors.

CC: But my kid's teacher is saying Christianity is opposed to science
and the star of Bethlehem was a supernova but wouldn't say which
supernova. [Note: this actually happened in my daughter's science
class last week. She doesn't need to be shielded from this because
most likely she will be a lawyer -- and a good one at that.]

TE: That's too bad. That's not supposed to happen. Sorry.

CC: Why can't intelligent design be taught in schools to combat this?
Phillip Johnson says that evolution is aligned with atheism. It sure
seems that way to me.

TE: Look at the Kitzmiller decision. It shows intelligent design is
just a form of creationism and intelligent design is just trying to
impose itself on other kids in violation of the Constitution.

CC: I am not concerned about other kids, but what about my own? If the
courts are going to force atheism down my kids throats I may just need
to homeschool them.

TE: How are they going to learn proper science?

CC: Well, I do have an engineering degree.

TE: What party do you belong to?

CC: I am a Republican and voted for George Bush becomes he appears to
be a godly man.

TE: Well that proves it. You are a Theocrat and a Pharisee and you
just want to impose your views on others. Jesus will be very
disappointed when he returns.

CC: (Spit takes his coffee) Please leave.

The bottom line is this. From a Christian perspective imputation of
motives is wrong. From a practical perspective it shuts down
communication whenever it is practiced. One of the biggest reasons
there is a huge divide between science and Christianity is because we
misstate what people actually know, their own motives. At that point,
they will not trust us to believe in something they don't already
know. This is done by both sides of this debate. Thus, all the effort
in apologetics goes to waste. It may not even be our own apologetics
that is wasted but others such as the fine work Dick has done.
Received on Sun May 21 14:47:33 2006