Comments on: Riposte: Christians for Sanity http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/ Trapped within my own mind Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:52:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jim http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10862 Jim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:37:17 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10862 I'd love to see you spell out a little more specifically some of the complaints you have with AiG's arguments. I've always respected your analytical take on these kinds of things, so I'd love to get your perspective a bit more in detail. I'm sure you're right, and I know _I'd_ love to do a bit more research on the claims of AiG, as well. I wonder if I could swing a paid 3-month sabbatical from the office to go and do some research... ;-) Oh, and I love your cryptic parenthetical there at the end. :) I’d love to see you spell out a little more specifically some of the complaints you have with AiG’s arguments.  I’ve always respected your analytical take on these kinds of things, so I’d love to get your perspective a bit more in detail.

I’m sure you’re right, and I know I’d love to do a bit more research on the claims of AiG, as well.  I wonder if I could swing a paid 3-month sabbatical from the office to go and do some research… ;-)

Oh, and I love your cryptic parenthetical there at the end.  :)

]]> By: mark http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10839 mark Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:28:01 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10839 Yeah, so we talked about this in Logic class today. There's a few elements going on here: 1) we MUST look at the arguments presented by "ID"ers to see whether they are internally consistent; that is valid-- "proving" the conclusion of their premises. 2) only after internal checks should we then check soundness, whether the premises correspond with reality. 3) All the while we must remove emotive language from their arguments and JUST look at the content. 4) Another caveat is the nature of the terms used. They're usually ambigious. I'll explain in a minute. Any objections so far? Now, while I agree with Jim, I also disagree with him. I do believe there's lots of places in the Bible where a NON-literal (note the ambiguity of this term!) approach is legitimately more valid than not. I won't go into detail, since it's Jim's argument. But if we look at the arguments at AIG, (according to my prof who has spent too much time on such things) they're: 1) originally conceived by an amateur geologist (but that says nothing of validity or soundness, so I shall continue) 2) Consistently take small occurances and make them the norm. 3) More emo than anything 4) full of informal fallacies. Now the joy in all this is that since American Christian have had ZERO formal training in logic, they're BEYOND easily swayed by a half-argument. And most of these arguements have BECOME increasingly more rhetoric than logic. I noticed it throughout the years at a Christian uni, and again confirmed today on authority by my prof. So while I have not spent time addressing any of the arguments at AIG, what I do remember, I find to be a hideous mess(note the emotive language, not logic) of pet-ideas which have rightly been flayed by scientists as not being science at all. Christians, if you're going to play with the "big boys", bring your guns. Learn your logic. Learn your science. Drop your presumptions and BUILD AN ARGUMENT already! (let it be known that I am slowly working on building arguments in OTHER camps, and thus have little time to address the creationism arguments in depth. Call me 'bunk' if you will. This has just been my experience as well as my prof's.) Yeah, so we talked about this in Logic class today.
There’s a few elements going on here:
1) we MUST look at the arguments presented by “ID”ers to see whether they are internally consistent; that is valid—“proving” the conclusion of their premises. 
2) only after internal checks should we then check soundness, whether the premises correspond with reality.
3) All the while we must remove emotive language from their arguments and JUST look at the content.
4) Another caveat is the nature of the terms used. They’re usually ambigious. I’ll explain in a minute.
Any objections so far?

Now, while I agree with Jim, I also disagree with him. I do believe there’s lots of places in the Bible where a NON-literal (note the ambiguity of this term!) approach is legitimately more valid than not. I won’t go into detail, since it’s Jim’s argument.

But if we look at the arguments at AIG, (according to my prof who has spent too much time on such things) they’re:
1) originally conceived by an amateur geologist (but that says nothing of validity or soundness, so I shall continue)
2) Consistently take small occurances and make them the norm.
3) More emo than anything
4) full of informal fallacies.

Now the joy in all this is that since American Christian have had ZERO formal training in logic, they’re BEYOND easily swayed by a half-argument.
And most of these arguements have BECOME increasingly more rhetoric than logic. I noticed it throughout the years at a Christian uni, and again confirmed today on authority by my prof.

So while I have not spent time addressing any of the arguments at AIG, what I do remember, I find to be a hideous mess(note the emotive language, not logic) of pet-ideas which have rightly been flayed by scientists as not being science at all.

Christians, if you’re going to play with the “big boys”, bring your guns. Learn your logic. Learn your science. Drop your presumptions and BUILD AN ARGUMENT already!

(let it be known that I am slowly working on building arguments in OTHER camps, and thus have little time to address the creationism arguments in depth. Call me ‘bunk’ if you will. This has just been my experience as well as my prof’s.)

]]> By: Stephanie http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10837 Stephanie Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:21:48 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10837 I don't think that anyone is insane for believing either alternative. Like Neil, I'm more inclined to listen to science than a religious text, but I am perfectly well aware that science does not explain everything. However, equally I find that the religious texts (be they Bible, Koran or something else) are unsatisfactory at times too. At this point in time, I simply find the scientific explanation makes more sense to me. That is a personal decision on my part and one I do not expect everyone to agree with. I don’t think that anyone is insane for believing either alternative. Like Neil, I’m more inclined to listen to science than a religious text, but I am perfectly well aware that science does not explain everything. However, equally I find that the religious texts (be they Bible, Koran or something else) are unsatisfactory at times too. At this point in time, I simply find the scientific explanation makes more sense to me. That is a personal decision on my part and one I do not expect everyone to agree with.

]]> By: Foolster41 http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10829 Foolster41 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:37:05 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10829 The half-life of carbon is aproximitly 5,730 years(Severak sources, cited at http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/MargaretKong.shtml) so that makes me highly doubt the validity of carbon dating. I also highly suggest reading http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating Like Jim said, there are sane reasoning behind Creationism. You don't beleive, that's fine. All I ask is you not treat me like I'm insane for believing what I beleive I will in turn do the same for you. The half-life of carbon is aproximitly 5,730 years(Severak sources, cited at http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/MargaretKong.shtml) so that makes me highly doubt the validity of carbon dating. I also highly suggest reading
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating
Like Jim said, there are sane reasoning behind Creationism.

You don’t beleive, that’s fine. All I ask is you not treat me like I’m insane for believing what I beleive I will in turn do the same for you.

]]> By: neil h. http://shamuswrites.com/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10821 neil h. Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:05:19 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/2007/02/12/riposte-christians-for-sanity/#comment-10821 There's nothing in the least bit accidental about evolution. The chances of life beginning and then thriving are infinitesimally small, but don't forget that there are trillions of possible planets on which it might have happened. After all, if you buy enough lottery tickets then sooner or later you will win the lottery. Similarly, it is well understood how evolution can create complex entities from simple ones, but this isn't the place to get into scientific details. If a world as complex, diverse and beautiful as ours popped into existence overnight due to random chance then that would take some explaining. Unless you believe that god would go to the trouble of creating 4.5 billion years worth of fossil life and geological evidence to give the Earth the illusion of age, then clearly the Earth did not just pop into existence fully formed, or even in six days. Sure, we are only beginning to take the first faltering steps in understanding the origins of life, but why not follow the evidence rather than just accepting one account in one book as the literal truth? There’s nothing in the least bit accidental about evolution. The chances of life beginning and then thriving are infinitesimally small, but don’t forget that there are trillions of possible planets on which it might have happened. After all, if you buy enough lottery tickets then sooner or later you will win the lottery. Similarly, it is well understood how evolution can create complex entities from simple ones, but this isn’t the place to get into scientific details.

If a world as complex, diverse and beautiful as ours popped into existence overnight due to random chance then that would take some explaining. Unless you believe that god would go to the trouble of creating 4.5 billion years worth of fossil life and geological evidence to give the Earth the illusion of age, then clearly the Earth did not just pop into existence fully formed, or even in six days.

Sure, we are only beginning to take the first faltering steps in understanding the origins of life, but why not follow the evidence rather than just accepting one account in one book as the literal truth?

]]>