Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Hi phil,

Borrowed a computer for a couple of days--mine went bye-bye.

 you wrote:

>>>>>On Mon May 29 23:07 , Philtill@aol.com sent:

 
I know you are traveling soon, so I will be patient for your response. I want to
try contributing an answer to your specific questions. I think that I can make
some small contribution. I have struggled with doubts about all these same things,
so I can at least state how I got peace in regard to them. But before I do, help
me understand the scope of the above quote. What in **particular** are **all** the
areas where you see an apparent conflict between observation and scripture and
where some Christians have appealed to pre-scientific accomodation of the world-
view of the original audience. I'll start the list:
 
1. the sequence of events in the days of Genesis 1
2. mankind beginning from a recent single pair of humans
3. the geographical scope of the Noachian flood
4. the lifespans of the Patriarchs
5. the tower of Babel story vs. DNA and linguistic evidence for mankind's spread
over the earth
 
Did I miss any of the "biggies"? (I know there are lots of "minor" ones, too, but
I don't want to attempt a comprehensive list to that scale.) Please add or
subtract from this list of biggies.<<<<<

Those are the big ones in my mind. I actually have a concordistic fit for these
issues (no one likes it but that is the way it is). Maybe one could say I am
picking a fight because I find the widespread view so utterly unworkable that I
find it strange that more don't find it so strange.

>>>>
 
If I understand you, you are asking how we can claim consistency with observational
data for the above items, in a way that is qualitatively different than the
concordism of other religions and that is not epistemically ad hoc. Is that a
correct summary?
 
Also, did you ask for positive observational "proof" for Christianity that stands
on its own merits, or are you more concerned with removing the ad hoc approaches to
the apparently negative observational data?<<<<

First, I have not asked for observational proof. I think proof is entirely
impossible. Many on this list tirelessly say I am asking for proof but that isn't
the case. What I am asking for is supporting evidence. Supporting evidence isn't
proof, but it solves the problem of having NO evidence whatsoever. Look at the
biggies up there in your list (which is a good list of biggies). The scientific
world used to believe those biggies. Newton and his contemporaries thought the
world history was exactly as outlined in the Bible.

But, because of the problems you list, science rejected those stories as being
serious history or science. Why did science reject the stories?????? BECAUSE THEY
DON'T CONCORD WITH REALITY.

This is why those on this list are not YECs. If the stories concorded with reality,
most people here would be YEC.

But, many on this list don't like concordance at all and think it is a dead-end
street. To me, it is the only way out of the epistemological thicket.

Now, what does one do when faced with a situation where his holy document is fully
holey--i.e., has historically fallacious stories by the bucketfull--yet the person
still wants to believe the message of the religion? Well, one can then say (as has
been said), the holy document is still true but the science was accommodated to the
poor intellectual abilities of those poor ignorant savages who actually wrote this
holey thing. In such a case, it is the theology which is true but not the history
or science. And so, the holy book is declared true by the fiat of saying it isn't
supposed to concord with reality.

But to me, this is absurd in the highest degree. In no other area of life can we
say with a straight face that something is true and worthy of dying for if it is
believed to be false.

This approach also leads us to saying very nice, but totally unverifiable things,
like: "The Bible has perfect knowledge of man". It is a nice thing to say, but how
does one determine if it is true? Do we merely say anything unverifiable which the
bible teaches is true theology and thus above reproach?

So, as I have asked Michael Roberts on this list and on others, why can't the {fill
in the blank with your favorite religion} do the same with the holes in their holy
books? To me this is a rational and reasonable question but for some reason,
people don't like it--they get mad at me for being obnoxious [Which I freely admit
to and will go further and say I have a bad attitude, a bad personality, am
arrogant, argumentative and I have a very sarcastic tongue. this list could be
extended ad nauseum].

So, if that is what you mean by "how we can claim consistency with observational
data for the above items, in a way that is qualitatively different than the
concordism of other religions and that is not epistemically ad hoc", then that is
what I mean as well.
Received on Tue May 30 06:24:03 2006