Re: [asa] On telling the truth about science

David--

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some important points, and your voice is a critical one here, IMO.

I guess I thought "a generous spirit toward fellow humans" encompassed most of what you said. In particular, the log/splinter issue amplifies what I was getting at -- namely, that central principles of Christian conduct apply to our dealings with everyone, not just with Christians. My concern, based on a small number of things I've seen here on this listserv, is that some Christians tend to wax eloquent on logs and motes when a fellow Christian is being criticized or rebuked, but go strikingly mute when a non-Christian (or anti-Christian) person is the subject of the analysis. The "generous spirit" I would encourage captures the best of our many expectations of Christians in their conduct toward others, and is distorted into something that I find repugnant when it's applied to subsets of God's image-bearers. I sure don't mean to imply that you've done this, but selective application of your comments would move in the wrong direction, IMO.

Regarding concerns for unity, I find that argument downright uncompelling, since the subject is not doctrinal diversity or opinions about this or that, but *integrity*. In that context, your questions about truth and correctness are largely irrelevant. People aren't being rebuked for being wrong. They're being rebuked for being dishonest. I find a world of difference there. After all, I can be dishonest about what I know but still be correct in what I know, and I can be utterly mistaken in my theorizing while honestly characterizing my position and the evidence it explains. And never mind clear scriptural directions regarding correction and rebuke. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that dishonesty be ignored for the sake of unity, but without the balancing emphasis, it would be easy to misunderstand. Would you agree?

And although I wasn't envisioning "strong, public accusations of dishonesty" against anyone, I think that your legitimate concern for everyday Christians should not lead you to seek the avoidance, at any cost, of hurt / offense / threat. I think you know this, and I don't mean to suggest that you would aim to avoid such things at any cost. But I think it's important to add the balance.

Should we tread with extreme caution when suggesting that anyone, Christian or otherwise, has engaged in dishonesty? Yes, of course. Should we spare Christians moral accountability, under any circumstances? No, of course not. Are we tempted to engage in teambuilding, especially when we feel like we're under assault? Of course we are.

Steve
 
>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/18/08 4:41 PM >>>
I don't know that the reluctance to accuse fellow Christians of lying is
either "a generous spirit toward fellow humans" or "teambuilding." In my
case, at least, it's (a) a concern for the unity of the body of Christ; and
(b) a hesitancy to pluck splinters out of others' eyes before tending to the
logs in my own.

As to (a), I wouldn't disparage that as "teambuilding." I have no interest
in supporting the YEC program and no concern about unbelievers seeing us
engage in honest, civil debate. However, many of the regular, decent folks
I fellowship and minister with would likely be hurt / offended / threatened
by strong, public accusations of dishonesty against some YEC leaders. They
will not be convinced by those accusations, and making such statements would
hinder our fellowship and ministry. IMHO, scripture and experience are
clear in circumstances like this: the wise and loving action is to express
your opinion sparingly (see, e.g, Prov. 12:18: "Reckless words pierce like
a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.").

As to (b), let's say there are some hucksters out there who are actively
dishonest in selling YEC. YEC can be a lucrative business, like many other
"Christian"-related products. But would we also agree that most YECs --
both professional and lay -- are not lying but rather are taking what they
believe is the right approach to reconciling science and scripture? And are
we also willing to recognize that none of us has this exactly right and all
figured out? Don't we all have a few areas in which we're not completely
comfortable with our own views? Are we secure and mature enough in our own
beliefs to gently admonish and encourage our YEC brothers and sisters to
consider looking at things differently, without anger or accusations? Or do
we really think it's all about *us* and what *we *think?

On Jan 18, 2008 1:48 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu> wrote:

> I don't see how Menton's abuse of Tiktaalik can be anything but outright
> fabrication:
> http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html
>
> But this is what we get when science mutates into folk science, and when
> its purpose is not exploration or understanding, but apologetics.
>
> Having said that, I'm baffled by the reluctance to suggest that Christians
> can lie. If the hesitation is a general one, born of a generous spirit
> toward fellow humans, great, but if it's some kind of teambuilding strategy,
> ditch it as fast as you can. (That's an overall comment, not specifically
> addressed to Ted. Who looks like Michael Keaton, don't you think?)
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> 01/18/08 1:27 PM >>>
> I changed the heading of this thread to reflect this particular topic.
>
> A couple of years ago, in the wake of the Kitzmiller trial (ID), I
> attended
> Kent Hovind's seminar, in the auditorium of Dover Senior High School.
> I'll
> skip the details on how it was arranged, and who declined an invitation to
> "debate" "Dr Dino," (not yours truly), and cut to the chase. Forget ID,
> Hovind told the audience -- most of whom did not live in the Dover school
> district (there was a show of hands about this during the seminar).
> Forget
> creationism. Forget the Bible. Just focus on the "lies" in the
> textbooks.
> All from a man who is now in jail on a criminal offense. Hovind still
> likes
> to use some of the arguments that creationists themselves say you
> shouldn't
> use, esp the howler about the retrograde rotation of Uranus disproving the
> big bang. Hello? A few details would be appreciated, to help me connect
> those dots. That one, as Pauli or Dirac or someone (I've forgotten
> exactly
> who) once said, isn't even wrong. He has to know that some of his stuff
> is
> more than out there on the fringe and entirely unsupported even by his
> fellow YECs. He has to. I just don't think he cares. Whether his tune
> will change after he gets out of prison, we'll just have to wait and see.
> I
> hope it does, literally for Christ's sake.
>
> The closest that most YECs come to deliberate lying, IMO, is when the
> present the big bang as an atheists' theory. That one also isn't even
> wrong. It's such a profound distortion of the history of the theory and
> how
> it is often viewed even by religious sceptics today. A profound
> distortion.
> It absolutely enrages me when I hear it, so I do make a big point of
> telling my students why I get angry about that one. Here's a little bit
> of
> what I tell them:
>
> http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/EditorBigBang.htm
>
> On the other hand, I get comparably angry when Scientific American devotes
> an issue to the multiverse and present it without blinking an eye as good,
> hard science that challenges religion. Of course--with Michael Shermer on
> board there now, they are advancing the old warfare thesis of religion and
> science. I know quite a few people who've canceled their subscriptions in
> recent years for similar reasons.
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 18 18:11:53 2008