PTET

Facts For Fundamentalists

In my Internet discussions with Fundamentalist Christians, I am constantly amazed at how little they know about what academics - and in particular Christian academics - have to say about such questions as the historical reliability of the Bible. The fact is, of course, that only a tiny minority of academics - mostly Fundamentalist themselves - believe that, for example, the Bible is a true, reliable history of ancient Israel.

This is largely due to the Fundamentalist doctrine of double separation - which calls for separation not only from non-believers, but also those who refuse to distance themselves from non-believers. The effect of this is to largely immunise "the faithful" from the opinions of the outside world.

Of course, Fundamentalist "Creationists" are often ridiculed for providing their own lists of quotations. This is because their "quotes" tend to be demonstrably selective, out of context and even made up. They almost never give sources - and wouldn't dream of providing links. (For examples, see John Pieret's superb Quote Mine Project at Talk.Origins). This page seeks to avoid such errors.

I have set out, therefore, to provide readers with clear access to what the majority of academic opinion actually thinks about the issues discussed. I do not pretend that all of the issues discussed are proven conclusively - but I do seek to demonstrate that expert opinion in the real world is not as Fundamentalist apologetic literature would have "the faithful" believe.

If you have any comments, or feel that I have used an authority incorrectly, then please let me know. (Please also let me know if this sort of post is bad etiquette. Most of the issues discussed do relate to Biblical Criticism & History).

Facts For Fundamentalists

Badfish

Evolution or our limitations of knowledge of "creation" doesn't rule out God.

I am not sure why you made this post, but it looks like just a stab at fundies, the exact same seeming negativities could be said of all beliefs.

And all fundies are not limited to such a definition.

And fundamentalists never seem to provide sources? How about holy text? Thats a source if you ask me.

Doctor X

He meant "reliable source."

--J.D.

Badfish

Such as? And how reliable is his biased link? It doesn't look as reliable as historical records or historical text, whether holy or not.

Doctor X

The "holy texts" I am aware of do not prove reliable.

As for PTET information you are certainly free to refute it with reliable sources.

--J.D.

Badfish

Where to begin? The whole presentation is based on assumptions and human scientific knowledge, and doesn't speak well or seem to mix well with spiritual knowledge or Gods word, IOW, it seems to favor mans philosophy (which is not inerrant either by any means) over basic holy text.

People just don't trust what they cant sense with the 5 physical senses, I guess thats mans nature to not accept that which cannot be sensed physically somehow.

But as history and mans own science has proven over the years, is that one cannot always trust ones own senses and perceptions.

Doctor X

If we discuss relative reliability, I am afraid science tends to win over stories written by man. See the various "discussions" on the Flood Myth!

I will leave the claim of "assumptions" for PTET to defend against. Allow me to center on "human scientific knowledge." Why is that a problem? SCIENCE [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.] is merely a way to understand the world and ourselves based on replicable evidence. If you do not like the results, you can try to explain the evidence in another way.

Whither this "spiritual knowledge?" How is it more reliable than knowledge obtained through observation and experiment--and even valid prediction? As for the second part, you make quite an assumption--that you know "God's word." What is the source for it? How do you know it is valid. As I have [Pontificated.--Ed.] explained on the other thread, if you cite biblical texts you will cite contradictions . . . unless you wish to restart child sacrifice. Considering it is almost Christmas, perhaps this is a good idea [Stop that!--Ed.]

In other words, how do you know the command for child sacrifice is not Big Daddy's word?

"Man's philosophy" is a growing and usually correcting entity--more knowledge, better theories and laws. However, that SCIENCE IS WRONG about something does not make scripture "right" or any more reliable.

Also, you have to consider the degree of wrong. Science does a far better job than scripture.

There are actually more than five . . . one of the most important always gets ignored . . . however, we can test what our various senses indicate. Now why is this a "bad" thing:

why should we accept things of which we have no evidence? Better still, what is the criteria? As other posters will ask a creationist, "why your myth and not someone else's." I personally prefer the Babylonian verison of the Gilgamesh flood myth . . . should not everyone else?

Worse, should we accept things contradicted by evidence? Frankly, I do not think that a good "philosophy."

If anything, that is a argument for science--science tries to select out matters of "opinion" for matters of "fact." It may be true that "there are stranger things in heaven and earth than are in your philosophy"--but that does not make one's "strange things" true!

--J.D.

rlogan

PTET, that was an interesting survey result you posted. I copy it here from the citation you gave:

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

95% of Episcopalians,
87% of Methodists,
82% of Presbyterians,
77% of American Lutherans, and
67% of American Baptists said "No."
_______

I don't know the number of clergy in each faith (and note the absence of catholics), but it appears roughly true that well over over 80% of those clergy surveyed reject literalism. (The other 20% lied).

Kosh

PTET - thanks for putting this up! I tried to start a thread to accumulate such information a while back, but alas nobody was biting.

As for your first attempt at "Fundy Fishing", looks like you've hooked a big one!

lpetrich

What's especially interesting is that the clergy don't like to talk very much about what they learn in seminary about the Bible and the history behind it. William Edelen talks about that in The Sin of Silence.


[oops...accidentally appended my comments to this post - CX]