Freethought & Rationalism Archive

oatmealia · 10-02-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example?

A little of both. As mentioned above, they don't care if they understand an explanation for a difficulty. SOmeone in authority SAYS that the answer is in Woodcock's book, or Saint Pheltup addressed it in his writings. No one in the congregation questions the assurance that the reference answers the difficulty.
An authority figure tells them that another authority has produced an answer.

Exactly. I can't count the number of times that (when I was deep in fundamentalism) I got all up into a doctrinal tizzy, only to be soothed later by the fact that "someone else has dealt with it," i.e. wrestled it into a vaguely convincing pretzel of an answer. I attended one of the more thorough Bible churches in the US, and I was dissatisfied with the answers I was getting, but somehow knowing that others believed the apologetics was enough to calm me down, even if it made me feel somewhat defective. What still puzzles me is how the first degree of authority (pastors, etc.) can sleep well at night knowing that they defer all of their congregations' questions to the second degree of authority, when they must know full well in their own minds that the referent answers aren't airtight.

Constant Mews · 10-02-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmealia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

A little of both. As mentioned above, they don't care if they understand an explanation for a difficulty. SOmeone in authority SAYS that the answer is in Woodcock's book, or Saint Pheltup addressed it in his writings. No one in the congregation questions the assurance that the reference answers the difficulty.
An authority figure tells them that another authority has produced an answer.

Exactly. When I was deep within fundamentalism, I can't count the number of times that I got all up into a doctrinal tizzy, only to be soothed by the fact that "someone else has dealt with it." I attended one of the more thorough Bible churches in the US, and I was still dissatisfied with the answers I was getting. What still puzzles me is how the first degree of authority (pastors, etc.) can sleep well at night knowing that they defer all of their congregations' questions to the second degree of authority, when they must know full well in their own minds that the referent answers aren't airtight.

They aren't relying on logic or the solidity of their arguments. And many of them do suffer these concerns. But they operate off the inner certainty that God has provided them with the answers; their comprehension is simply at fault.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between devout Christian belief and untrammeled insanity.

gregor · 10-02-2007, 02:32 PM

And while we're off topic, let me say that in my opinion there is are fundamental (pardon the pun) differences between the flock:

1. Believers that accept what they're told (YE, skeptics have been answered, and Pascal's wager)

2. Believers that accept and proseletyze from a position of ignorance

3. Believers that accept, proseletyze, and misrepresent facts or ignore evidence.

I treat the first group (which I see daily) with polite (unspoken) disappointment. I try to ignore the remainder.

-Jay- · 10-02-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmealia

Exactly. I can't count the number of times that (when I was deep in fundamentalism) I got all up into a doctrinal tizzy, only to be soothed later by the fact that "someone else has dealt with it," i.e. wrestled it into a vaguely convincing pretzel of an answer. I attended one of the more thorough Bible churches in the US, and I was dissatisfied with the answers I was getting, but somehow knowing that others believed the apologetics was enough to calm me down, even if it made me feel somewhat defective. What still puzzles me is how the first degree of authority (pastors, etc.) can sleep well at night knowing that they defer all of their congregations' questions to the second degree of authority, when they must know full well in their own minds that the referent answers aren't airtight.

Nice to see you over here, oatmealia. Do you know if the dissatisfaction you felt is something that's common? I can understand that if one grew up in a fundamentalist community, one could be very reluctant to give voice to any questions or disagreements out of the fear of damaging family relationships and friendships. If I may ask, to which church do you refer? I live quite close to one of the midwest's more well-known Mega™ Churches.

regards,

NinJay

oatmealia · 10-02-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by oatmealia

Exactly. I can't count the number of times that (when I was deep in fundamentalism) I got all up into a doctrinal tizzy, only to be soothed later by the fact that "someone else has dealt with it," i.e. wrestled it into a vaguely convincing pretzel of an answer. I attended one of the more thorough Bible churches in the US, and I was dissatisfied with the answers I was getting, but somehow knowing that others believed the apologetics was enough to calm me down, even if it made me feel somewhat defective. What still puzzles me is how the first degree of authority (pastors, etc.) can sleep well at night knowing that they defer all of their congregations' questions to the second degree of authority, when they must know full well in their own minds that the referent answers aren't airtight.

Nice to see you over here, oatmealia. Do you know if the dissatisfaction you felt is something that's common? I can understand that if one grew up in a fundamentalist community, one could be very reluctant to give voice to any questions or disagreements out of the fear of damaging family relationships and friendships. If I may ask, to which church do you refer? I live quite close to one of the midwest's more well-known Mega™ Churches.

regards,

NinJay

To be honest, I'm not sure. I actually didn't grow up in a fundamentalist community; a very kind teacher at a local school (whose son ended up being my ex-fiance) had some of my younger sisters as students, and then later got to know me when I started dating her son. If it weren't for her, I wouldn't have known the slightest thing about Christian fundamentalism, and my sisters and I probably never would've "dabbled" in it. We ended up growing very close, and she became a mentor figure to me as a result of my mother moving away when I was about 12.

Anyhow, she herself was the only one in the church who I ever really got close to, besides her son, and beyond her I didn't see a lot of questioning. I was repeatedly encouraged to spend time with my peers (I'm awful at finding common ground with my peers) and they had mostly been raised in the church, so they were surprisingly adept at waving off objections and counter-arguments to their faith. They rarely considered that outside viewpoints might be in anyway credible. Their only dissatisfaction seemed to stem from the fact that those outside "just refused to get it!" The mentor lady I was speaking of occasionally brought up difficulties with me, and we would discuss them. Then she would go to an authority, who would give her an answer, and she would swallow it. She was a very vocal person, so she inadvertently made it clear to me that it was a tough pill to swallow, so to speak, but swallow it she did. Most of her problems had to do with things like the doctrine of rewards and the doctrine of the Christian walk, though, not so much outside objections. I love and respect her very much, and it has been difficult to ask questions knowing that she will be devastated if she finds I've moved away from my past worldview, so I can answer to that even though I wasn't raised in it.

The church I'm referring to is Duluth Bible Church. It's not a Mega Church in the typical evangelical sense, though it is growing larger. Probably only "famous" in Free Grace circles. They're a very sincere bunch, and I never noticed any funny business with money or power or anything like that, but I just can't agree with them any longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gressil

This is what is so funny, I have said that I knew nothing about the DH or the tablet theory before Dave and Dean started talking about it (I think you said the same thing but I'm not going back to check). I had no preconceived ideas about which theory is the most likely to be correct and nor did I really care, but having read every single post in this thread I must admit that the DH makes much more sense and seems to be supported by evidence.

Dave, you have failed utterly to convince me.

I just wanted to second (third?) this. The DH absolutely appears to be the more credible option per the evidence presented here.

FatherMithras · 10-02-2007, 10:43 PM

Can someone split the creationist mindset stuff off? It's very interesting.

Dean Anderson · 10-03-2007, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

...
So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example? ...

On a somewhat higher level, this is what Christian apologetics is all about. Consider Robert Prices' description of Willian Laine Craig's arguments

Quote:

William Lane Craig is an employee of Campus Crusade for Christ. Thus it is no surprise that his is what is today euphemistically called "engaged scholarship." Dropping the euphemism, one might call him a PR man for Bill Bright and his various agendas. One thing one cannot expect from party hacks and spin doctors is that they should in any whit vary from their party line. When is the last time you heard a pitchman for some product admit that it might not be the best on the market? When have you heard a spokesman for a political candidate admit that his man might be in the wrong, might have wandered from the truth on this or that point? Do you ever expect to hear a Trekkie admit that the episode about the Galileo 7 was a stinker? Heaven and earth might pass away more easily. And still, there is just the outside chance that Craig might have become convinced through his long years of graduate study that Bill Bright has stumbled upon the inerrant truth, that needle in the haystack of competing world views and theories. But I doubt it. I think he has tipped his hand toward the end of the first chapter of his book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, "Faith and Reason: How Do I Know Christianity is True?"[2] There he draws a distinction between knowing Christianity is true and showing it is true.

What, then, should be our approach in apologetics? It should be something like this: "My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself." [3]

A little further on he saith, "unbelief is at root a spiritual, not an intellectual, problem. Sometimes an unbeliever will throw up an intellectual smoke screen so that he can avoid personal, existential involvement with the gospel."[4]

Craig, then, freely admits his conviction arises from purely subjective factors, in no whit different from the teenage Mormon door-knocker who tells you he knows the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm, swelling feeling in his stomach when he asks God if it's true. Certain intellectual questions have to receive certain answers to be consistent with this revivalistic "heart-warming" experience, so Craig knows in advance that, e.g., Strauss and Bultmann must have been wrong. And, like the O.J. Simpson defense team, he will find a way to get from here to there. Craig would repudiate my analogy, but let no one who can read doubt from his words just quoted that, first, his enterprise is completely circular, since it is a subjectivity described arbitrarily in terms of Christian belief (Holy Spirit, etc.) that supposedly grounds Christian belief! And, second, Craig admits the circularity of it.

I must take issue with Dr Price's assessment here. Gallileo 7 is an excellent episode - the exchange between McCoy and Spock at the end is a classic of its type...

Amaleq13 · 10-03-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

I must take issue with Dr Price's assessment here. Gallileo 7 is an excellent episode - the exchange between McCoy and Spock at the end is a classic of its type...

Thus fulfilling his prophecy of the Trekkie In Denial.

Dean Anderson · 10-03-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

I must take issue with Dr Price's assessment here. Gallileo 7 is an excellent episode - the exchange between McCoy and Spock at the end is a classic of its type...

Thus fulfilling his prophecy of the Trekkie In Denial.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Keith&Co. · 10-03-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Thus fulfilling his prophecy of the Trekkie In Denial.

Not necessarily.
Was the Galileo 7 episode picked for a reason? I find the special effect of that particular episode, such as the costumes of the big hairy primates, and the flaming fuel ejecta, less than perfect, but i do find the philosophical discussion and the woman's miniskirt equally revealing and beneficial to the plot.

The question is, does any defense of the Galileo 7 episode automatically get pigeon-holed as a Trekkie knee-jerk response? Would that mean the pigeon holer has as much or more bias as the Trekkie?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2007, 02:32 PM	#13
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	And while we're off topic, let me say that in my opinion there is are fundamental (pardon the pun) differences between the flock: 1. Believers that accept what they're told (YE, skeptics have been answered, and Pascal's wager) 2. Believers that accept and proseletyze from a position of ignorance 3. Believers that accept, proseletyze, and misrepresent facts or ignore evidence. I treat the first group (which I see daily) with polite (unspoken) disappointment. I try to ignore the remainder.

10-02-2007, 10:43 PM	#16
FatherMithras Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3,890	Can someone split the creationist mindset stuff off? It's very interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.