Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

*David, I have come to realize that you do not know what the word
epistemology means. You mean apologetics.*

No, I mean epistemology. Epistemology and apologetics, of course, go hand
in hand. Your apologetic stance will be one thing or another depending on
your epistemological stance. Presuppositionalism is a way of doing
apologetics that is tied to an epistemological stance. Did you get the
Religious Epistemology text published by Oxford that I mentioned, in which
Plantinga discusses presuppositional epistemology? It really is a good read.

Anyway, I've sort of beat this to death now.

On 6/2/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> *This is for David Opderbeck, Michael Roberts, Don Winterstein*
>
> *>>>>On Wed May 31 21:14 , "David Opderbeck" sent:*
>
> I see several problems with the Great Green Slug hypo.
>
>
>
> First, the hypo seems to bear no relationship to any real-world
> situation. I doubt it's possible to claim that *any* religion has "no
> support whatsoever scientifically or observationally." Certainly all the
> major world religions say some things about life and human nature that in
> some ways ring true. And Christianity in particular in many ways is
> grounded in good history (at least from the time of the later history of
> Israel on) and resonates with human experience. The more realistic hypo
> would pose that *some *aspects of the student's inherited religion lack
> scientific or observational support. That in itself doesn't seem terribly
> problematic, since no broad area of theory -- religious, philosophical,
> scientific, or otherwise -- is 100% consonant with every observation or
> every other plausible scientific theory. Unless (and even if) you want to
> resort to Descartes' solipsism, there will always be ambiguities and
> inconsistencies to deal with, no matter what you believe. <<<<<
>
>
>
> GRM: Actually it does represent a real life situation. I didn't say that
> the GGS religion didn't teach anything true. I have over the months of
> asking this noted that the GGS creation story is wrong, just as the
> face-value-yec-reading of the Genesis account is wrong and in the same way
> that the Old-earther Mesopotamian reading of Genesis 6-9 is wrong. It is
> those stories which are proclaimed to be theologically true when they have
> been found lacking in physical verification of the stories. (I will post
> something on Reformed presuppositional apologetics, which you seem to like.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>Second, the hypo provides no context about the Slug religion. We
> don't know precisely what aspects of the religion are in conflict with the
> observational and scientific data the student is learning at Harvard or how
> important those aspects of the religion are to the coherence of Slug
> theology as a whole. For example, we don't know precisely why the notion
> that the Slug created the universe conflicts with any scientific or
> observational data -- it may be that the Slug is an eternal spiritual being
> who established the laws that guided evolution, removing any apparent
> conflict. <<<
>
>
>
> You don't need a context about the slug religion (fill in any religion you
> want to—why this is so difficult for some people I don't know—it is easy to
> find examples. Take the Mormons and their archaeological claims which are
> totally false if you want to). Can a mormon do what we do and proclaim
> the Book of Mormon theologically true even if it is historically false?
>
>
>
> >>>Finally, the hypo begs critical questions about epistemology. What
> does it mean for a religious claim to lack, or have, "support"
> "scientifically" or "observationally?" <<<
>
>
>
>
>
> David, I have come to realize that you do not know what the word
> epistemology means. You mean apologetics. In an earlier post you said you
> believed in Reformed Presuppositional Epistemology. I said then that
> there was no such thing. Jack Haas sent me a reformed presupp article and
> I will post on that rather amusing view of the world in a day or so. But
> I want you to know that epistemology is the philosophical area of study of
> how we know what we know. This is not apologetics, which is why our views
> are defendable.
>
>
>
> So, David, here is a fully contextualized question. Can a mormon, who
> grows up and finds out that his religion's statements about North American
> Prehistory is false, proclaim the Book of Mormon true theologically and
> claim that it teaches the true theology?
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Roberts:
>
>
>
> >>> Well, a great Green Slug is a nonsense view and no amount of
> accommodation/concordism or even reckoning it to be a myth of great worth
> would mitigate its nonsense.<<<<
>
>
>
> So, believing in a Mesopotamian flood for which there is zero geological
> evidence of a widespread flood isn't equal nonsense?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>There is simply no picture of what God is like in Genesis or the rest
> of the bible so there is no problem here. <<<
>
>
>
> OK, but you have also avoided answering the question when applied to the
> Mormons. Is it OK for a Mormon, when he finds out how false the accounts of
> North American archaeology are, to proclaim his book theologically true
> while at the same time it is historically false? This is a real life
> example, Michael, and you have avoided so far answering this one. You can
> play yec and hide your head in the sand from questions like this but that
> doesn't mean the question is nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>The accommodation is over the perception of the univesre and the ANE
> cosmology was a reasonable one for its day.
>
>
>
> I will try your GGS on some Harvard students this august - assuming they
> have IQs in double figures!!
>
>
>
> From a fellow accommodationalist<<<
>
>
>
> You say you are a fellow accomodationalist, but you are delusional. Since
> I don't believe that the ANE cosomology was a reasonable thing for a
> truthful god to allow into his supposed communication to man at any time in
> history, I am NOT a accommodationalist. I think if God communicated to
> mankind such a view of cosmology, then God is a liar. And therein lies
> the conundrum I am faced with. I won't say it is theologically true as you
> are want to do.
>
>
>
> In short, I have become amazed, and extremely disappointed in the way you
> handle yourself on this issue and with these questions. You are not
> forthright, you are evasive as a YEC, you are saying things that are not
> true (like asserting that I am an accommodationalist). You are quite
> disappointing in this to me, Michael.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don Winterstein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>>Now that my memory is getting into gear, let me modify my second
> paragraph (below): In previous investigations I did indeed find one
> instance where "word of the LORD (YHWH)" referred to contents of
> scriptures. This was in the Chronicles account of King Josiah's discovery
> of the Book of the Law (2 Chron. 34). Josiah says with reference to the
> contents of that book, "...Our fathers have not kept the word of the
> LORD...." (The parallel account in 2 Kings 22 quotes him as saying, "...Our
> fathers have not obeyed the words of this book....") <<<<
>
>
>
> Maybe I missed your response to me when I noted that the prophets often
> say, 'The word of the Lord came to [name of prophet], Here is an example.
> Whose words are in quotes?
>
>
>
> Genesis 15:4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
> your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 2 21:42:37 2006