WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
On the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, John Piper writes about the Reformer's impact on America. 
Court rejects Christian education
Attorneys for Calvary Chapel Christian School (CCCS) in Murietta, Calif., on August 8 filed an immediate appeal with the Ninth Circuit after a judge threw out the school’s lawsuit charging the University of California with anti-Christian viewpoint discrimination.
The UC system requires that incoming freshman have completed certain core high school courses in order to meet UC acceptance criteria. But the university in recent years has refused to approve more than 150 courses intended to be taught by Christian, Catholic, and Jewish high schools, citing “biased” course content. Such courses ranged from humanities surveys that incorporated a Christian historical viewpoint or specifically Christian writings to traditional science courses whose only nod to faith was the inclusion of a Bible verse at the beginning of each textbook chapter.
CCCS, represented by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian public interest law firm, argues that UC is systematically attempting to force on private religious schools a secularized view of foundational academic subjects. For example, UC rejected one CCCS course called “Christianity and Morality in American Literature.”
“Unfortunately, this course, while it has an interesting reading list, does not offer a non-biased approach to the subject matter,” university admissions officials said.
UC is a public agency and “is required to remain neutral when it comes to religion, politics, or other philosophical viewpoints,” said Advocate attorney Robert Tyler. “Instead of remaining neutral…UC is discriminating against our clients’ viewpoints merely because they are religiously based.”
Here’s a San Francisco Chronicle story on the case.
Here’s WORLD’s 2006 story on this issue.
Here’s a sampling of Calvary Chapel Christian School courses rejected by UC.
back to top169 Comments to “Court rejects Christian education”
I’m just wondering if we should be surprised that being Christian brings certain real-world consequences. Is litigation really the way to respond to the world’s hostility?
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christians here are not happy unless they can be martyrs and feel persecuted.
Although I flunked out of the University of California when I started college (though eventually did graduate from college), I applaud their excellent work in supporting your agenda.
After I flunked out I went to community college for two years and then went back to a California state college. The oppressed Christian home schoolers can just do the same thing as I did (though I wasn’t oppressed). Be good for them.
Report comment to moderator
So, Random, what should we do if we really feel persecuted? Should these parents cave to these standards or just not go to college?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Random, I guess you could say Christians are “happy” when they’re treated like this, because it proves the truth of what Jesus said, and it shows that we’re doing what’s right.
On the other hand, you’re correct; there are other options. But will you still be condescending toward us when it becomes illegal to homeschool?
“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master. ‘ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…”
John 15:20
“Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
2 Timothy 3:12
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
Would it be the end of the world if Christian kids couldn’t go to state universities? We need to be open to alternatives. Would God still provide for Christians if they couldn’t go to college? Seems to me it would strengthen our faith.
Report comment to moderator
Appealing to CA courts or the 11th circuit is worthless. They have to be ready to take it to the SC.
Random.
Christians are persecuted and victimized all the time. The ones doing this are the same ones who discriminate against anyone else today – the secular left. Everyone else has given up the bigotry and discrimination that go with persecution but not the left. This is just another example of it.
Report comment to moderator
After reading a sample of courses regected it appears, other than the history courses, the courses were rejected for lack of information and lack of standards. These are easily fixed and are a valid criticism for a university to make. As for the history courses, the biased content makes it difficult to assume that the students received a basic survey of the time period in question.
As for the general question, a university is an autonomous institution even when publicly funded and is entitled to maintain their own admission standards.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
As I said, make up the credits. Often, community college education is better at the first two years than University education, anyway.
Or they can go to a Christian college.
In any case, college should come with a warning label (as on cigarettes and alcohol). It is bad for many young people.
llama never met a cliche he didn’t want to adopt and take home. I imagine his wife gets tired of the huge flock now filling their home.
Report comment to moderator
After looking at a course list from UC…I can’t see where anything much can be rejected based on their current offerings. Rejecting a course based on the lack of objectivity or bias is disingenuous at best.
Survey courses on the history of Homosexual lifestyles and figures on the history of America…with booklists including
“Long Before Stonewall: Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America” are not going to lack some bias of their own, thereby making the argument of the university against the Christian or Jewish course offerings….give me a word here…
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Random,
I make up my on tag lines and don’t the French to do it for me
I know you think you are the only ones who can come up with an original idea but, once again, you think too much of yourself and too little of others.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, neutrality–pure objectivity–is simply impossible (as most academics these days will admit, as long as doing so fits their agenda). The charge that Christian education is biased simply means that its bias doesn’t match the bias of the university. In other words, the bias of studying a subject within a Christian context is intolerable to the supposedly “neutral” government-run university.
Report comment to moderator
Good for the UC. I read the course descriptions and they sound terrible, there is no way this is acceptable preparation for beginning work at UC. These standards are doing the children an amazing service and I hope the parents of these kids start demanding that these schools provide a real education.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest the following would be generally agreed to:
- there would be no necessity for the UC to accept a purely religious course based on presenting the religion of a specific denomination or group of denominations
- the UC should presumably accept a course which is not religious and focuses on what is generally considered standard academic material
As I read the supporting documentation I am led to the following observations
- it apepars that the UC was effectviely rejecting some of these courses as basically religious courses
- looking over the student handbook for Calvary Chapel Christian School it would appear that their Christian religious perspective heavily influeneces essentially all their activities including academics
I did check and Calvary Chapel Christian School is accredited by WASC, so this issue apparently is not clouded by accreditation issues.
I am sensing an honest difference of opinion on the amount of religious content in specific courses is appropriate compounded by an explicit statement of purpose to indeed include religious material in the course curriculum.
If the courses were devoid of the religious content it would appear that they would have been accepted.
Without having the detailed course materials in front of me, it is difficult for me to judge.
And therefore in the time honored tradition of America, it would seem that we will be going to cuort.
There is of course the observation that perhaps not waving red flags in front of bulls may perhaps reduce the potential for being gored by the bull.
Report comment to moderator
As a private Christian school teacher, this one hits close to home for me, but in the end I support UC’s and the Court’s decision. Here’s why.
The university claims it accepted other religious courses and texts, but dismissed these in question because they did not meet the university’s standards for basic content knowledge. This is a valid concern on the part of universities. We would all agree that a psychology course that explained mental disorders by the presence of negatives in your Thetan which needed to be detoxed through Purif (Scientology stuff) should not be credited as legitimate knowledge. A world history course that began with Audhumla the cow licking Bur into shape from the ice at the edge of Niflheim and interpreted all historical events as set pieces in the struggle between the gods and giants on the path to Ragnarok we would likewise agree should not be credited as knowledge.
So I think we would agree that universities have an interest in and even a duty to discern between acceptable courses and unacceptable.
Now, you may personally believe that the courses UC rejected should have been accepted. But who is in the best position to make that decision? The university. They have more specialized knowledge on the subject that you, or than the courts. Of course they’re imperfect. I do not for a minute doubt that many of the professors rejecting those courses have a strong personal bias against Christianity. Still, they have demonstrated to the court that they have good reason for rejecting the specific courses they did, and that they accepted other courses taught from a Christian perspective. This is strong evidence against their being motivated by religious discrimination.
I don’t think it fair to cry that secular universities are trying to dictate the curriculum of Christian schools. This is the free market and the marketplace of ideas both at work. A Christian high school is free to decide what its curriculum will be. A university is free to decide whether that curriculum counts as legitimate in their departments. If you don’t like it, go to another school that does accept God’s Magic: Algebra With More Faith and Less Math! as an upper-level math class. Or put your kids in a different Christian high school. There are plenty that are strong in the faith and academically rigorous at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
David L.,
That’s exactly it. If the university was honest, they’d admit that they reject the courses, not because they contain a religious bias, but because they reflect a religious perspective that conflicts with their own religious perspective. It was bad enough when secularists still really believe in the fallacy of objectivity and neutrality and they made these kinds of arguments, but as you noted, academics are no longer that naive, and their courses reflect that understanding. They only appeal to this so-called “empirical facts” argument because they can get away with it. It’s sickening!
Report comment to moderator
It’s all about tolerance and diversity!
Christians made the mistake of being gullible enough to believe that tolerance and diversity actually mean tolerance and diversity. They don’t. They mean the exact opposite. And now that Christians have embraced tolerance and diversity, what are they going to do?
Report comment to moderator
Musing says it well in #12, though I think the issue is not “how much religious content is too much,” but “how much course content is too little.”
If I discuss every established method of Algebra as evidence of God’s marvelous handiwork in creation, and thoroughly cover the established methods of Algebra, my course should be accepted.
But I propound my alternate theory of Algebra as I have deduced it from scripture and ignore the established methods, even though I may never never mention God another day in class, my course should not be accepted.
I also think Magwah has a point in #8 about the university’s hypocrisy in this regard. They ought to apply the same rigorous standards to their upperclassmen that they do to incoming freshmen. Some upper-level humanities courses are nothing but imposing some uncritically accepted political framework over existing knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: Nice, thoughtful post.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 16,
you have a good point in your comment:
“Musing says it well in #12, though I think the issue is not “how much religious content is too much,” but “how much course content is too little.” ”
I appear to have implicitly assumed a zero sum game: there is only so much time for content AND if we increase one we reduce the other. You are right, this need not be a zero sum situation. The foundational issue is that all the academic material must be addressed.
Thanks for the catch!
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I think Maghaw’s post in 8 is completely asinine. This is someone who apparently hasn’t garnered critical skills through Christian study because the difference between high school course work that prepares an teenager for college study and a course offered to an adult in a specialized offering seems to be alluding him. There is no pedagogical reason for using the same methods to analyze a high school historical review and an upper unit humanities course.
Further I can guarantee you that Mahwah has spent a lot less time evaluating Before Stonewall than the UC board has spent with United States History for Christian Schools.
HRW, I think the courses you are talking about (the ones that just lacked standards) are the secular examples provided to some show the extremeness of this situation. There’s no doubt that CCC’s courses were rejected for being completely non-scholarly, and it’s writing is completely unacceptable. Even NJL should be predicting an embarrassing loss for this court case.
However, I am considering hiring this lawyer, as UC also rejected the history textbook I wrote, The American History of Horrible People! Here an excerpt that is coincidentally similar to the one taken from US History for Christian Schools:
“Most conservatives had a racist view of class structure. On the whole, they believed
that white people were basically good and everyone had an equal shot at success in Reagan’s America. Such a belief, of course, ignored the libidinal investment that upper class whites had to social privilege explained by define prophecy to Slavoj Žižek.”
Think I have case?
Report comment to moderator
Mike Dunford says:
From the biology textbook “Biology for Christian Schools” published by Bob Jones University (rofl), the source for many of the textbooks used by the school:
Yeah, no wonder the court rejected this nonsense. Good lord people you need to clean your house.
Report comment to moderator
More fisking of the pernicious nonsense promulgated by these textbooks.
here
here
and here
there is some funny stuff in there. kudos to University of California for standing up to dumbing down!!!
Report comment to moderator
So I guess my concern here is that as I read more of the data, it appears that the sampling of courses rejected by UC at the bottom of the introduction to this discussion may perhaps be argued as selectively chosen:
Courses Rejected by UC
As I poke further, it appears that science course were also included in the rejected courses but not listed in the sample.
So some thoughts:
1) math is totally abstract: there is no Christian math or secular math, there is math and the University has specific math required for entry.
2) likewise the objective data supporting science is independent of secular or religious and the basic processes used to manipulate this data scientiifcally are also independent of being secular or religious. There is a body of work which must be mastered as foundational material for further study and rejection of this because the material is not consistent with your religious framework provides no defense: we have seen this repeatedly most recently in Dover PA. It looks like CCCS was probably a bit too frisky here.
3) history also has basic standards and as a minimum there is an expectation of exposure to a minimum historical background and historical methodology. Again, refutation of standard historical methodologies as was apparently the case by CCCS is likely to be problematic, as CCCS has apparently learned
4) philosophy and literature, which appeared to dominate the examples, I suggest is much more nuanced. Again, while there is arguably a basic expectation of exposure to certain literary materials, literature is indeed a field of interpetation, and perhaps one can argue for some degree of latitude here
In short it looks like CCCS was too frisky, was too blatant about being frisky, and has been appropriately “burned”. They might have had a shot if they had limited their “creativity” to history or literature. When they apparently introduced science courses as described in the San Francisco Chronicle, they should have understood the inevitable outcome.
And I suggest that the history of the Supreme Court on these issues suggests that they will receive no succor there.
In fact, it is not clear why they are wasting the courts time on an issue which has been settled law for some time.
Report comment to moderator
NOw as I looked at the UC entrance requirements:
UC entrance Requirements
It looks like there is a three year math requirement (2 years algebra and geomoetry) and a two year sicnece lab requirement (two of biology, chemistry, physics). Now based on the the San Francisco Chronicle article, it would seem that CCCS is dilererately joepardizing their students ability to enter into UC at all.
Instead CCCS students will presumably have to attempt to enter based on examinations alone:
Examination alone Entrance Requirements
It sounds to me like CCCS is deliberatly risking the ability of their students to enter UC. They could have easily used standard science materials and moved forward.
Report comment to moderator
musing it certainly raises the question of why dear sweet old lynn vincent would only post a link to a ’sampling’ of courses and not of course the sweet meat that was really at the heart of the UC decision to reject these courses.
They were parroting the same old tired debunked creationist canards that have been stomped into the ground hundreds of times. Can anyone here honestly say that they think this passes for education?
For those of you who agree that these shopworn ratty old claims are meritless, my question to you is “Why do you keep appeasing those who wish to substitute stupidification for education, just because they claim to believe in the same gods that you do?”
Clean your house.
Report comment to moderator
This quote from the attorney interested me:
“UC is a public agency and “is required to remain neutral when it comes to religion, politics, or other philosophical viewpoints,” said Advocate attorney Robert Tyler. “Instead of remaining neutral…UC is discriminating against our clients’ viewpoints merely because they are religiously based.”
I would tie that into Magwah’s post at #9. Neutrality is a key point, but we don’t have enough of the record to know how this was dealt with yet.
I’ll be interested in what the Ninth Circuit has to say and then the Supremes. This isn’t over and it isn’t decided.
Report comment to moderator
so NJL this is ‘education’ in your book?
Right.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 26,
I suggest that both the biology and chemistry courses which apparently were part of the corpus of rejected courses from CCCS would indeed appear to fit the legal standards of Dover PA and Edwards v. Aguillard and would presumably be established law. In fact, arguably it would be illegal for UC to accept these as valid courses since they appear to be religiously dominated.
The literature course by contrast may require a more nuanced approach.
You are correct, it is not over until finally decided. But history is a the best guide we have for predicting the future, and this would seem to be an effort to make an end run around previous cases.
Report comment to moderator
My sense is the summary of the situation might be as follows:
1) CCCS may teach any courses they choose since they are an indpendent private school
2) UC would appear free to not accept courses which do not meet the standards typical of such course material
- arguing that a religiously based science course is an execution of religious freedom would not seem to free one from meeting the established standards for the course material
And of course, if there is a disagreement, the standard process is to go to the courts. So far the courts have apparently found for UC.
Report comment to moderator
sounds like lynn’s acceptance of the school’s claim ‘only bible verses in the beginning of science book chapters’ is egg on her face.
of course it could turn out that this textbook I have cited is not the one used at the school. Anyone have any extra info?
Report comment to moderator
the san francisco paper suggests that this is the same book.
lynn, care to repair your commentary?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not up to you or me, Musing. And the issue of the texts may not be the issue on appeal. Legal briefs are not always what you may think they are. I’m going to wait for the circuit decision and maybe a Supreme Court opinion. Nothing I say or you say amounts to a hill of beans at this point. We have a news story, and I’m sorry, but reporters focus on what they understand, not legal nuances. I’m not upset now, nor do I think you’ve “won.”
Report comment to moderator
Well we can chalk Lynn unprecedented journalistic standards up to mixing mononucleosis with botox or we can just assume she’s up to form once more.
NJL, you’re off you’re rocker on this one, but we could expect that given you’re not anywhere near California. I remember when this business broke in 2006 and it’s pretty clear that the UC has a lot of independent discretion in whether to accept courses or not.
You’re neutrality point is NOT salient and I can’t imagine any existing legal argument that would make it so. As a public institution “neutrality” to religion does not require that the UC behave like a debate judge or a referee; all arguments are not valid in the name of free exercise. Some things are NOT prep for college level work, and that includes courses taught from BJU propaganda pieces.
I agree with this assessment: the ruling “confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations.” What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a “religious exemption from regular admissions standards.”
No SPECIAL RIGHTS for conservative wingnuts!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus quotes, derisively,
Every Christian should hold to this dictum. With all the scary-spooky 21st century baggage it carries, some Christians recoil at it, but it isn’t nearly as egregious as the Erasmuses of the world(ontheweb) would have us think…it isn’t egregious at all.
Report comment to moderator
“…non-biased approach to the subject matter…”
There is no such thing as a non-biased approach to the subject matter especially in the areas of literature and history.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 32,
of course it not up to either of us, I have noted that several times.
What I am doing is looking at the cases from the past and using them to project the future.
So far such efforts on these fronts have been unsuccessful.
I note that if this were not a public college, it would seem that there would be no discussion here: private colleges have reasonable freedom of action on admission criteria.
I would find it interesting if a court would hold UC to different objective standards here, as indeed they so far have not.
Right now it appears to be 1:0 in favor of UC.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah post 34,
when this is applied to the inerrancy of the Bible, I have noted many times that the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not accept such Biblical inerrancy.
This is in fact a minority Christian position.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglad post 35,
which of course is the basis for my points in post 23 separating literature and history from math and science.
In this case, however, it looks like CCCS also used this argument for math and science with predictable outcomes.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, it does appear that the conservative Christians are asking for a special exemption from UC’s standards. They should be treated like everyone else. Either you meet the standards or you don’t get in.
But really, I’ve often thought that Christianity and education are the antithesis of each other.
Education is about free inquiry.
Christianity is ultimately about conformity and not questioning or denying it’s authority. If you question long enough or persistently enough you will be booted out of the group.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Musing,
It may be the minority position; it shouldn’t. Scripture itself predicts the bandwagon will be lonely.
Report comment to moderator
I have found Christianity to be about freedom…honest questioning is encouraged. I think if someone is truly seeking Christ their attitude will reflect that and God will reward the effort through both fellowship with other believers and perhaps with answers. If on the other hand a person is honestly seeking angst and strife that is also readily available within the body of Christ. Baiting people with inflamatory statements is likely not the best way to foster honest discussion or learning.
My dentist holds the Koran to be infallible…and yet he is both well educated and from a religious backround..why are Christians who believe their Holy text infallible deserving of such scorn?
Report comment to moderator
Magwah – 41
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 15
Report comment to moderator
The notion that it is infallible is a falsifiable claim. The differing accounts of the exploits in the OT given in kings and chronicles are enough to destroy that hypothesis.
So give up the game. You only insist on inerrancy because you have an agenda of human exceptionalism and science denial, in other words the privileging of ignorance over knowledge and a repeal of the Enlightenment.
Those of you like Victoria are hopeless, you have drunk the Kool-Aid. As musing points out, most christians do not agree with you and in fact many many many of them laugh at you. The ones who are here (and not laughing) I hold directly responsible for your continued oblivion.
Clean your house. Unless like Solon a head count of your fellow travellers is more important than justified knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I read that in the Bible myself…and of all the parts I have studied, this is the one I most dislike seeing come to pass, perhaps because it is so very evident in society and I really do try to get along. Strangely enough, I own a few of those BJU press books, and I was able to ClEP not only American history, but also American literature in college, so I am relatively sure that as I have used these texts and seen good results.that the bias against these texts is not strictly academic.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, this is college, and not secondary or elementary schools. Different rules will apply because the students are considered adults. You don’t know how this will turn out based on the cases you mentioned.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, this case does not revolve around Christianity. It is a constitutional question, and peoples’ beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible won’t be rule on.
Report comment to moderator
why is this constitutional? these schools are teaching bull crap and trying to pass it off as education. it has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with STUPID. the willfully stupid kind that you and the more educated here protect instead of speaking out against, just because you call your gods by the same name as the unenlightened believers here.
the same sort of allegiance that causes churches to protect child molesters.
this sort of ‘education’ is nothing but child molestation and it is telling that you would privilege it over clear thinking, just to maintain ranks.
Clean your house. It’s FILTHY.
Report comment to moderator
Magwah – 44
This has been going on for centuries. Christians have been persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ – it has now become open season – just look at the laws that are being passed – it’s not going to get better -
Report comment to moderator
There are plenty of educated Christians, people who can disagree without using vulgar language to make their points. I believe that those who do not believe in God are wrong, misguided and in need of wisdom rather than more education, which isn’t seeming to serve them well. A true scientist will tell you that science does not have it all figured out nor does science deserve the blind faith some invest in it’s tenets. I believe that in America that there is room for your beliefs Erasmus, and for Bob Jones too, even while the beliefs diverge. Likening Bob Jones educational resources to child molestation…well that is…sort of like refusing to let atheists procreate or adopt because they will likely damn their children.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria…I am naive in some respects, having spent a goodly bit of time with enlightened, educated, sophisticated and/or academically oriented people, I am still suprised at the lack of tolerance that those who do not have faith heap upon those who do, usually in the name of enlightening the ignorant Christian. The Bible proves it’s authenticity and truthfulness daily even by the ugliness of those who hate believers. Too true, it will not get better.
Report comment to moderator
Magwah
My time spent in the corporate world as a professional, certainly wasn’t any different, since education is a must. Education from my point of view doesn’t make any difference.
Those who have made the choice not to Believe come from every walk of life. The educated just believe they sound much more convincing, and articulate than those who aren’t – but in the end the none-believers will share the same eternity without the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I think you are right…I have heard more than enough academics pontificate on about their own beliefs, thinking that they appeared the soul of tolerance, articulate in their verbiage, and of superior intellect…while the reality was not so much….The truly wise realized the limits of education and were not afraid of addressing those limits.
I really do need to pray for unbelievers more. And I want to be able to make smileys in my posts…I know what is important….smileys are the thing. ; )
Report comment to moderator
Magwah, you make Believers smile, and if those who don’t believe will listen, and come to Christ, they will make us all smile. I join you in the call to prayer for those who don’t believe – we must be diligent and pray for them.
Report comment to moderator
I’m so jealous, that is the cutest smiley…You make me smile too! Thanks gal!
Report comment to moderator
you two should get a room.
magwah, if the bible is truthful then perhaps you will tell me how many chariots were in the stables of king david. see the bible says different things in different places. so long truthfulness.
that wouldn’t be a big deal if you didn’t have drooling mouthbreathing theocratic morons perverting science education, based on that very premise.
So their premise is wrong. It is easily demonstrable that the bulk of the material in that biology book is also false, inasmuch as those claims touch on empirical matters.
remove the space : )
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus
YOU WRITE —-
“you two should get a room.”You should check out the rules for this blog, that was uncalled for.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
I tell you it looks lopsided? Does it appear to be winking…I’m going for winking…
I think chariot numbers are as important as Millions versus Billions of years to a person with faith in the evolutionary model…these numbers change. I am sure that pertaining to your faith in science it is fine for the millions and billions to change…I have faith God will clarify chariot issues in His time.
I’m being faceitious though.
I am serious as all get out about the smiley though…thank you for the tip..is it better?
Report comment to moderator
magwah you can have faith that god will clarify exactly how there could be both 7000 and 700 chariots AT THE SAME TIME. that is wonderful. perhaps in this magical universe that gods live in there is no excluded middle.
but in this universe, we know that one of these claims is necessarily false.
it must be. there is no other alternative.
of course your reference to millions vs billions is puzzling. what on earth do you mean by ’someone who has faith in the evolutionary model’ and what does ‘millions and billions of years’ refer to?
Victoria, spare me. You are the most noxious vacuous form of troll.
Report comment to moderator
“you two should get a room.”
I’m sorry to appear to support Erasmus, but that is very funny. Great delivery and timing!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah post 40,
if you are going to assert that Christians should believe that the Bible is inerrant, on what evidence do you base this statement?
We have demonstrated several instances in these blog discussions where the Biblical narrative as traditionally understood clearly does not match the avialable objective evidence. We can rehash if you like.
Given the mismatch between the Biblical narrative as traditionally understood and the objective evidence, why should we consider the Bible objectively inerrant?
Report comment to moderator
Magwah post 41,
perhaps because when you say:
“why are Christians who believe their Holy text infallible deserving of such scorn?”
and combine it with the comment:
“I have found Christianity to be about freedom…honest questioning is encouraged.”
are so easily seen as logically inconsistnet that there is no real way to defend these positons as logically.
Either you accept questioning, in which case the Bible can be questioned, or you don’t accept that the Bible can be questioned, and you don’t accept questioning.
This is a tautology here, there is no subtlity.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 45,
a point I have already admitted.
but you don’t seem to be admitting what the history of these cases has been. I am detecting a whistling in the graveyard problem here.
The courts have been clear: creationism can not masquerade as science in the public educational arena. I suggest that the evidence so far suggests that CCCS has tried to end run this well supported legal understanding.
And you believe they will get away with it based on what legal argument?
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that we are seeing the rising again of a discussion which has a predictable end.
As erasmus notes in post 43, the argument that the Bible is commpletely objective inerrant is both straight forward to falsify AND has been falsified many times in this blog.
To hold to the standard suggested by magwah in post 41 is extremely difficult: any error is sufficient to disprove the infallability argument, and there are any number of errors which are trivially demonstrated based on the objective evidence.
But then of course, this argument is generally held, when people are honest, not based on the evidence but on faith.
So perhaps it might be simpler to stipulate the following:
1) a belief is strict Biblical inerrancy is an act of faith not proof
2) arguing then that there is proof both undermines the faith argument AND for the traditional understandings of the Biblical narratives is in several cases explicilty contradicted by the objective evidence
3) therefore arguing for the strict inerrancy of the Bible based on the objective evidence is a fools errand (see magwah’s post 57)
There is a corrolary to the above argument: using the Bible as objective evidence is a fools errand as well.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, and Erasamus,
Honest questioning again is the difference in the compatibility of my statements. I question things I read in the Bible all the time, I do it for the reason of enhancing my understanding, and also when I need guidance. Most Christians do this…they go to their Bible for clarification of God’s word and God clarifies things through reading further,prayer and study. I give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible rather than man’s understanding. People who lack faith in God’s word tend to have faith in logic, reason,and the understanding of men who have connections to science. These people, who lack faith, also tend to be very condescending towards people who do not put all their proverbial eggs in those baskets.(do not misunderstand…I love logic and reason…I just have a belief in the fallibility of man and so my eggs are more diversely spread out.)
I can research why the chariots David had have differing numbers….Christians have questioned this also…in fact I likely will. The difference will be in my sources, as a person without faith trusts a researcher or author without faith when researching …so a person of faith will likely have different sources that are trusted in doing research.
As an aside, Erasamus asked about my reference to millions versus billions of years in reference to 700 and 7000 chariots. Simply, many folks have faith that science will eventually gain a consensus on the age of the Earth other buring questions. Science dosn’t really deal in facts, as laymen think of facts,…it deals with evidence that either proves or disproves a theory or hypothesis in the eyes of a scientist and his peers. There is a great deal of faith in this process. )Faith in the integrity of the men involved, in their intellect, in their objectivity…lots of faith and trust)
My faith is that God can explain a numerical chariot inconsistency so that it isn’t an inconsistency at all.
Brighter and better than I have tried to expalin this…I make no claims to great eloquence or erudition. I am however, well educated…and I ahve come to different conclusions than you have honestly.
Report comment to moderator
and I can’t spell or type….or even make smiley properly!
Report comment to moderator
OH I’m thrilled! I made a smiley!!!!!!!!!!!!
the winking was throwing me off!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Don’t be too serious and tense guys…I won’t chase you with a Bible or anything, I’m just trying to explain my beliefs. I can’t change yours or anyone elses.
Report comment to moderator
thanks magwah. i think it is very easy to explain the chariot inconsistency, along with the many many many other numerical issues like it. my solution is this: parts of the bible are totally and completely wrong.
this may be error from transcription or translation. it may be that these stories are myths that were never intended as factual accounts. it may be that people have knowingly introduced falsehoods into the bible for other reasons. I dunno. clearly there are errors, unless you are going to deny the old excluded middle (and you say you love logic!).
once you admit this the conversation becomes much more interesting.
you are correct all facts are theory-laden. i think you are failing to recognize that this applies to ‘biblical facts’. for instance, the theory (i prefer hypothesis but it will suffice) that the bible is inerrant you have been using to evaluate ‘biblical facts’. only when such theories refer to empirical processes or entities are they useful.
Report comment to moderator
Now there is a side issue in the inerrancy argument which runs something along the lines of the ofllowing:
- the autographs were inerrant
to which the obvious response is that we do not have any of the autographs.
There are a variety of arguments asserting that we can reliably reconstruct the autographs WHICH ALL FAIL BASED ON SOME SIMPLE INFORMATION THEORY ARGUMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS.
We have had these kinds of discussions before and I addressed many of them in my critiques on McDowell. It is always an interesting argument, however.
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe the experiential or empirical model is the only valid way to knowledge. Neither do you or anyone I know. Most people read books or have conversations to learn as well. My thoughts on the use of Bob Jones curriculm as a valid edcational tool are based on the validity of one theory laden fact set being just as valid and acceptable under our constitution as another. I can’t debate intelligent design or creationism effectively….but I can say that if neither the evolutionary model nor the ID or creationist side is completely emperical…and unbiased…then I fail to see why one or the other should be favored above the others. Wether or not you or I personally subscribe to a belief system ought to be irrelevant. I wonder why the courses became an issue at UC? Was it that the students were unprepared in the past for the college classes despite the SAT scores, or ACT, or CPT exam requirement for admission…or was it too many students with differing viewpoints challenging the professors that caused the school to look more closely at the students prerequisites at CCCS?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 64,
so when you assert that honest questioning is appropriate, then I suggest that such honest questioning can and does in some cases lead to concluding that the Bible is not inerrant.
You either allow questioning and see where it leads or you do not.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 69,
when you say:
“I do not believe the experimental or empiracal model is the only way to knowledge”
I agree with you.
the experimental or emprical is however the only way to knowledge regarding the objectvie world.
there is more to life than the objectvie world, But it is important to use the proper tools in the proper places.
Belief is a bad tool for maing statements about the objective world
Empriacal evidence is a bad tool for making statements about belief.
To the person with only a hammer, all problems are nails.
Report comment to moderator
Magwah post 71,
so lets explore your comment:
“I do not believe the experiential or empirical model is the only valid way to knowledge.”
some more.
We are examining what I typically term the objective world here: the world which we understand based on our observations.
Now it is fair for you to ask if experimental and empiracal approaches are the best way to gain knowledge abuot the objective world: this is a root perhaps a philosophy of science question.
Now do you want to pursue this philosophical question in more detail?
I suggest it is a long journey and at the end of the day, observation, with some practices to ensure good quality observation, is the tool of choice.
But we can go here if you like.
Report comment to moderator
Most people read books or have conversations to learn as well.
And such exercises are only a gateway to knowledge when one in turn confronts the ideas gleaned from reading or conversation with data from the objective world. just repeating an opinion from a book (whether Tiger Beat, Genesis, or The Fishes of Tennessee) is not knowledge.
Tiptoeing around the democratic fallacy is what you are doing. The BJ University textbook is full of factual errors. The theories that underly those ‘facts’, when they even touch on objective material entities relations and processes (they usually don’t), are contravened by our experience of the real world. Not so with ‘the other’ model, which places that criterion as the standard.
Report comment to moderator
I like your analogy…and I can smile at you about it! Nails indeed…
(”You either allow questioning and see where it leads or you do not.” post 70)
I do not take responsibility for where your questions lead you. I allow you nothing and disallow you nothing either. I question many things…myself included. I can see, in my view of the world, where others questions and their answers may lead them down a different path…I hope others can see where I can diverge from your conclusions also,and if not, then I hope they can at least concede my right as a salient human being living in America to a different belief system and conclusions based thereon. I was reading in the Bible the other day that not everyone will agree with the Bible…I think we both agree on the veracity of that Biblical point.
I do not ask that the UC give special consideration to these students from CCCS…just the same treatment. I think I had mentioned it previously, I’ve used these books personally, and am using them now along with other materials of a similar bent in educating students. I have passed the CLEPT and obtained credit in history and literature. I also received a 3.5 GPA in my science courses at a public university and am now currently involved in furthering my academic studies so that I may teach at a university. So all that aside…I still wonder what prompted the review of the students from CCCS? Were they too confrontational to the professors or not prepared academically? If academic preperation was the problem then how on Earth did the students pass an ACT, SAT or CPT as is required for student admission? It is a curious thing to me, having been successful as a Christian student myself, that these textbooks are being so denigrated and the educational merits of a Christian based education belittled when I see no evidence of inferiority to the public education system…just a differing belief system and intolerance.
Report comment to moderator
just a differing belief system and intolerance.
relativism aside, one ‘belief system’ is based on facts and another is based on pronouncements from a collection of bronze age myths containing many factual errors. it’s hard to see how you can call that ‘education’.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, POst 73
I do not believe I am tiptoeing anyplace…I’m here and clearly stating what I think…or at least trying to….if I am unclear I’ll keep at belaboring my point and prayerfully I’ll get there.
You postited:>
And such exercises are only a gateway to knowledge when one in turn confronts the ideas gleaned from reading or conversation with data from the objective world. just repeating an opinion from a book (whether Tiger Beat, Genesis, or The Fishes of Tennessee) is not knowledge.End Posit>
Do most other people of your acquaintance back up every fact they read with empirical processes and objectivity? I reside within academia a good bit of the time and have not seen this rush for verification of purported fact too often. There are many errors within many textbooks, I haven’t had a run of students eager to check facts in their texts,either within the secular or Christian segment of the academic population. Is it a problem to hold Christians to a higher standard than the rest of the world legally or logically.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
I am claiming that your “facts” are based on a faith based belief system leading you to a different world view as well, I am just trying to say that with respect. I can also say that yes, my beliefs have been held longer than the ones you are basing your life upon, as you have pointed out…and this means what?
Are you saying that new beliefs are better?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 74,
so when you say:
“I do not ask that the UC give special consideration to these students from CCCS…just the same treatment. ”
it follows that by thier use of a religous and not science text for their Biology for example they like other schools whihc may use this text will find that their material does not meet the acceptance standards of UC based on the objectvie scientific basis for biology.
It is now a no brainer.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 76,
when you say:
“Do most other people of your acquaintance back up every fact they read with empirical processes and objectivity?”
I can only say that I doubt everything that I read, I cross check it to see if I get consistent information, and where I can I perform tests of the information to verify that it is plausible.
One of my favorite exercises is to check for errors in my text books. There are often a few.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 77,
now if you are going to make this statement and suggest that it should be accepted:
“I am claiming that your “facts” are based on a faith based belief system leading you to a different world view as well, ”
Then we need to perhaps do a detailed review of what is meant by the objectvie owrld and how we ascertain factsin the objective world.
This is a purely technical argument and while it illuminates world view issues, it is not itself directly a world view discussion.
And based on this analysis, I suggest that observation is not per se a faith based exercise and the objective world is not a matter of faith (although it is a matter of pragmatism!
).
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I was able to score very well in science courses with my backround of using these textbooks, not to mention history and literature also. The students applying at UC are able to pass ACT, SAT’s and CPT tests using these texts or they wouldn’t be students or even prospective students. So how do you account for the disparity of acceptance? If a student can do the work, and is on par with the other students, how is it fair or right to deny acceptance based on a differing belief system?
Science based on the evolutionary model is also intrepreted through on a set of core beliefs…history can be viewed from differing points of view, literature can be viewed through differing lenses…math..not so much. I know that The US government and it’s school system is not supposed to establish one belief system over another..they are to remain impartial, as a state university I see problems with the position of the university, saying basically… if your beliefs don’t match mine then you are not eligible for acceptance. A church yes…a state university no. These are adults in a college…
Musing…good for you on checking for errors. You are I’m sure a very good student and I hope it is a lifelong habit…I’ve often been told questioning will get a person far.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 77,
now on the assumption that magwah will either engage in the discusision on observation or magwah will cede the field on this point, lets establish some preliminary dififculties early:
1) all observations are from the past: by the time we are talking about the observation, the time at which the observation was taken is gone. All observations and data is from the past AND JUST BECAUSE IT IS FROM THE PAST DOES NOT PER SE INVALIDATE THE DATA AND OBSERVATION
2) all observations are indirect: we sense, see, feel etc. but these are in fact indirect sensing of typically electromagnetic radiation. We never sense, see, feel “the actual thing” being observed: indirect observations are valid observations
There is an even deeper point which comes out of Quantum theory: what we consider the observation is in fact instantiated by the observation itself. This is the root of the Shroedinger Cat question. If one adopts a version of the Penrose model for Quantum mechanics, this does not invalidate observations, although it provides an interesting perspective on what observations mean.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 81,
but because you passed the test, does that mean the text books were correct?
My entire graduate career was focused on demonstrating that a fundamental understanidng in my field was wrong and providing the mathematics to demonstrate why and how to correct for it.
One could still, however, pass virtually every test in my field without going into this point.
One could not, however, understand certain critical problems in my field without understanding my point, and indeed for close to 50 years engineers and scientists had been reaching erroneous conclusions on these issues because they did not understand this material.
Ah yes, the error still remains in some of the text books on this field today.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 81,
or there was the formula in my Digital Signal Processing class which was wrong.
When I approached the instrucotr on this point, the instructor replied that most of the students do not have the depth of math required to catch that the formula was in error.
Oh, yes you could pass the class without understaidng the error.
There were certain DSP designs, however, which you could not get properly designed unless you understood the error.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 81,
so we can address your assertion:
“Science based on the evolutionary model is also intrepreted through on a set of core beliefs”
through perhaps two paths:
1) we can derive the background leading to our models of evolution (where evolution is defined as the development of the variety of complex life forms from a common ancestor)
2) we can explore your presumably alternate model and examine whether it satisfies the observation requirements I have been alluding to
And your preference?
Report comment to moderator
I am claiming that your “facts” are based on a faith based belief system leading you to a different world view as well, I am just trying to say that with respect.
Well by all means let’s hear it. And if need be you can drop the ‘respect’. I’m a big boy.
Report comment to moderator
I really don’t want to get into the metaphysical.
I can play philosophical games with academic points myself…and it is all very self congratulating for me…but I’m old and over that.
I’m looking for real life ways that people can get along. I do not want to spar with an evangelical person of a differing belief system…I do not need the boost to my intellectual ego…and I’m sure you don’t either. I’m sure you did super at logic..don’t feel alone, there are more intelligent people out there than you or I.
So your point that you want me to concede to you is that Christains aren’t supposed to be in the university system…are not bright…cannot particiapate in science…what is the point in relation to UC and hte CCCS?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus…that was the point. post 86
I am claiming that your “facts” are based on a faith based belief system leading you to a different world view as well, I am just trying to say that with respect.
So…if we have differeing belief systems….does your have to be superior…cannot belif systems co exist in America? Thast all..
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 81,
and to speed the evolution discussion up: we will posit an old earth (100s of millions to billions of years) basedon the following sets of evidence:
1) all the rocks have been demonstrated to at one time have been molten: thermodynmaic cooling arguments for the earth (which have an error which underestaimates the earths age) lead to a minimum age of about 100 million years
2) plate tectonic arguments for motions of say Indai lead to a minimum estimate of the age of the earth of about 250 million years (and this is an estimate which by its nature underestimates the earths age)
3) radioactive dataing by several methods leads to an age of the earth in billions of years
4) solar system and astrophysical observations and comparison with experiment lead to an age of the sun of perhaps 5 billon years and suggest that for mechanics reasons, planets must form soon after the formation of the sun
If we are to reduce the estimated ages of the earth by say a factor of 10,000X or so (to yield a 10,000 or so year old earth), then energy release rates require dynamic behavors (heating, earthwuakes, heat loss) which would prove temrinal to life as we know it and are not supported by the data.
we can go here if you like, but it is usually simpler to posit an earth of billions of years and this allows us to actually discuss evolution (that is the variety of complex organisms are descended form a common ancestor) rather than waste time on age of the earth arguments.
And indeed there are some very interesting issues in evolution which lead to some very interesting insights.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 87,
no I am not asking you to concede:
“So your point that you want me to concede to you is that Christains aren’t supposed to be in the university system”
Rather my arguments are as follows:
1) you misuse the word Christian here: it is Christians who insist on inerrancy of the Bible (typically but not always self-identiifed as evangelical Christians) who have difficulties here, not Christians in general
- the majority of Christians do not insist on inerrancy of the Bible
2) even Evangelical Christians can pursue science with intellectual honesty SO LONG AS THEY UNDERSTAND AND REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF WHAT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM
- it is the misunderstanding of the valid conclusions which can be drawn from belief systems which is the issue
My concern here is simply intellectual sloppiness. I often hear any number of arguments typically surrounding issues of Biblical inerrancy which simply are not supportable.
Make your arguments intellectually sound OR do not expect that your intellectual argument has any right to be taken seriously.
Report comment to moderator
You go Musing…all that is very interesting…I have heard these positions and statistics before.
But the question remains…
Can you conceive in your philosophy of a person who doesn’t agree with your Science facts having anything valuable to contribute in an academic discussion? Or are people who don’t agree with you on these points just not the sort of quality people you think the UC should be allowing in?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 87,
but I am also arguing for something much deeper:
- in the case of objectvie material, it is inappropriate to accept any assertions of objective data without a degree of sketicism
Everything should be tested, retested, and reconsidered from many different perspectives.
The objective world has only one value, and that is a purely pragmatic value: it keeps us alive.
If the goal is to keep the general “us” alive, then we better learn how to manipulate and understand the objective world to the best we know how.
Unskeptical acceptance of material does not help us here.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 91,
the facts as presented lose value in the following conditions:
1) they are shown to be wrong
2) we are asking what I term subjective questions of the form:
- why is that beautiful?
- why am I doing this?
- how should we think about what we should be doing?
and similar questions.
The objective world is purely pragmatic: it keeps us alive.
The subjective world describe why we consider living worth the effort.
And objective data say little on the questions of the form why.
And beliefs say little on questons of the form what.
If you want to talk beliefs nad philosophy, I love these discussion: lets honestly approach belief as just that: beliefs.
If you want to talk objective facts and data, lets talk objective facts and data.
But lets not confound the two.
Report comment to moderator
magwah,
So I consider the following to be a very interesting question of the subjective form:
Can we gain any insight into why the author (redactor etc.) constructed the two creation stories the way they did? I find the language of Genesis 2:1 to say Genesis 2:4 or so very interesting.
Note that we can stipulate what is written in Genesis 2:1-4 or so and focus on why it was written that way it was written.
Or if you like, why are there apparently two different flood narratives spliced together in Genesis 6 – 9?
I find these fascinating discusions (among others), it is not fact based, and it allows us to explore what people were thinking and trying to express as they wrote this very early material.
Report comment to moderator
So, if these students are able to do the work and pass the ACT, or the SAT and the CPT entrance exam…why do you think the courses are not allowed? Is Christianity anathema to academia? I’ve heard many on both sides of the issue declare it so.
In post 87 you listed a whole set of beliefs you have…I have a set too…
Are you of the belief that a state university of adults should support one set of beliefs over another, I like free inquiry into of all available hypothesis and points of view? My experience in academia has been more free perhaps? I have not chosen professors overtly hostile to Christianity, and many question all belief systems without denigrating the person holding them. I accept nothing unskeptically myself….I just have come to different conclusions. I looked at the facts, evidences and was able to choose faith. I’m not trying to convert you…are you saying to be intelligent I must convert to your belief system?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 95,
two points here:
1) if they do not have the foundational material then the latter courses can become difficult
but perhaps more important as I noted in post24:
2) students can test in if their transcripts do not have adequate converage
the testing in provisions are, I suspect, more onerous, but there is that option.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 95,
but I suggest your point here is a bit disingenuous:
“Are you of the belief that a state university of adults should support one set of beliefs over another, I like free inquiry into of all available hypothesis and points of view? ”
I am happy to have all sorts of philosophical views.
However when we talk about the objectvie evidence, I suggest that a model which specfically rejects the objective evidence does not prepare one for material which is specficially focused on the objective evidence.
It would appear that you keep tyring to end run this point, If you are going to keep at this point, then lets disucss it head on.
But quite simply: religion is not science.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 95,
I think I don’t have the correct reference for where you are suggesting that I am laying out my beliefs.
Can you clarify: it does not appear to be post 87.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 95,
I believe your comment here holds everything:
“I accept nothing unskeptically myself….I just have come to different conclusions. I looked at the facts, evidences and was able to choose faith.”
You appear to be explicitly stating that our belief in the Bible will trump all objective evidence for objectvie facts.
And as such, of course you are explicitly stating that you will not participate in scientific activities.
It is perhaps a great philosophical position.
It is perhaps a great religious position.
It is perhaps a great literary position.
It is a terrible science position, and one which was essentialy abandoned in the West during the rennaissiance.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, what belief do you have in the Bible as per post 99?
You stated your beliefs in post 92…reflecting back to my post 87.
In post 99 you also mention my position on science is terrible, so does that make me and others who do not hold your beliefs, anathema to academia in your judgement of what science is? I’m viewing science as a tool to discover God’s creation and how it works…how are you seeing science?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 100,
it doesn’t make you terrible people.
It perhaps makes you terrible scientists.
Not everyone needs to be a scientist.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 9100,
reflectig back to post 92,
This doesn’t reflect my beliefs!
This reflects my disbeliefs or more correctly my uncertainites!
And no, uncertainty is not the same as belief!
From the belief perspective there are three cases:
a) I believe in something
b) I don’t believe in something
c) I am uncertain as to whether I should believe in something and need to check further
Interestingly, as noted in the Great Debate, there is a high degree of similarity in positions a and b.
But I am not asserting either of these positions. I am asserting that I don’t know, and won’t know until I check.
After I check and find data, it moves from being a belief to being a position based on evidence. Even here, there is a gradation of certainty based on the quality of the evidnece, but we have moved beyond a position of pure belief.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t mention what your beliefs in the Bible are?
I believe science is useless without God…perhaps it makes me a terrible scientist…however, a presupposition in evolution or little green men creates the same sort of terrible quandry common to all suppositions. Everyone goes into science with a set of beliefs…
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 100,
now this becomes interesting when one considers atheism vs. a religous belief in God.
The first observation is that there is no way to prove God exists. However, there is also no way to prove God doesn’t exist.
There are several ways to respond here:
1) one can say that despite the evidence or lack thereof one will believe in God
2) one can say that since there is no evidence one will disbelieve in God
3) one can say that since there is no evidence one will remain uncertain
4) one can say that since there is no evidence, Occam’s razor suggests that God is uneccessary
I take a slightly different tack: I recognize that from an objective perspective God will never be proved and is uncessary. I suggest that for me personally from a subjective perspective God is necessary and I will retain the assumption without proof (a belief statement).
This position is only viable, however, if one is careful with what one claims based on this belief.
I have a limited intellect on this issue and need a relatively contained set of beliefs.
I note that Francis Collins is a much better intellect than I and he can manage an Evangelical Christian belief set while maintaining his scientiifc effectiveness. I am a bit in awe of his ability here, although I think I have noted one subtle mathematical error in his arguments.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 103,
because of course you haven’t asked.
I believe that the Bible is an inspired work written by earnest individuals who were within the context of their times and environment, explaining how they believe humans should relate to God.
I have no expectation that the Bible will be inerrant.
I have no expectation that the Bible will not be contradictory.
I do expect that the Bible can be considered from an objective persepctive (it is a book which can be held and analyzed).
I do anticipate that in reading the Bible I will gain a much better insight into how people think about and consider they relationship with God.
It is possible, but I can not prove, that God may be able to explain to me how to relate to God through my understanding of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Our posts must have crossed Musing…
Too true from the Great Debate..there are similarities in positions A and B .
a) I believe in something
b) I don’t believe in something
c) I am uncertain as to whether I should believe in something and need to check further
The big difference though betwwen those and position c, is that position C takes no stand…and being that the question, Who is God and who then is man? is a deciding factor in many areas of academic inquiry…a person will have to grapple with deciding humanities place in the world before being able to decide truth….And you type way faster than I.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 106,
which is of course why I chose d (or more correctly option 5) in post 104!
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 106,
of course it is perfectly appropriate to take no stand i fone finds the question uninteresting.
Just because you find it interesting does not mean eveyrone will (variation of your observations in post 100)!
Report comment to moderator
end posit
So you have this objectively unnecessary faith in God..that you find necessary and will retain to what purpose, as it is not a factor in your beliefs about everyday life? I am not critical…whatever gets a person through the day.
So, are people who have a faith that is more rooted in their everyday life less able to conduct science the way you have judged best(the way that does not make a person a terrible scientist), what about those who firmly believe in evolution or the green men people…can they conduct science inquiry effectively? Objectivity is impossible isn’t it, and so who should conduct the business of science?
Report comment to moderator
That went poorly…I lost the part of the post I had thought I had cut and pasted from Musing….
Report comment to moderator
This is what I was responding to from Musing:
(I take a slightly different tack: I recognize that from an objective perspective God will never be proved and is uncessary. I suggest that for me personally from a subjective perspective God is necessary and I will retain the assumption without proof (a belief statement).)
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 106,
Musing posits:(of course it is perfectly appropriate to take no stand i fone finds the question uninteresting.
Just because you find it interesting does not mean eveyrone will (variation of your observations in post 100)! )End Musing posit.
Too true…but in the whole history of mankind that has been recorded…it is documented that about every society grappled with the question of ,Who is God and who then is man. There are exceptions that prove the rule…but people who think usually get around to that question. Not everyone answers it conciously…but even those who claim no side or interest usually end up living their beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 109,
so when you state:
“as it is not a factor in your beliefs about everyday life”
you would seem to be betraying yourself as not arguing honestly.
As I noted, these beliefs deeply affect my thoughts on “why” of life.
They affect effectively none of my “what” in life.
I thought I had provided clarity here, but perhaps we need to explore this more?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 112,
perhaps every society grappled with God, but that does not mean that every indiividual did?
Just like you may be a terrible scientist but you are demonastrating a good master ofsay good farmers, but poor theologians.
When it comes to humans, one size does not fit all.
Report comment to moderator
Musing…In post 113 you say that your beliefs effec none of your what in life…only your why.
I can say the same thing, interpretation of the facts.
People who think, tend to wonder where they came from…as to post 112. You cannot say every person every time…without a fallacy, however, society follows the individuals within it.
What is going on with this aspect of your post Musing?>
(Just like you may be a terrible scientist but you are demonastrating a good master ofsay good farmers, but poor theologians.)
I may be many things but what are you suggesting?
Also I am asking…do you think these students who have passed the ACT,or SAT, and CPT tests are unequal to take a colege level course? And if so why?
Report comment to moderator
BTW Musing…I’m wildly impressed…you can correctly use effect and affect….no small skill!
Report comment to moderator
don’t let me get in the way of whatever this is. i just want to return to the posting by Lynn and suggest that she is being less than honest in both her analysis of the events and also in the title heading of this post.
From worldview weekend (hardly an objective nor unfriendly source to most worldbloggers)…
Report: Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
This is after all the point. If schools insist on teaching magical nonsense then why should a university not protect their own interest (i.e. Education, not Indoctrination)? It’s perfectly fine for Magwah to believe everything was spirited into existence at the whim of an omnipotent being just because his interpretation of a book written by bronze age nomads says so, but that does not equal an education in science.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus…if the students pass the ACT or SAT tests and/or a college entrance exam one of which a student must do to enter a university (and qualify for financial aid)…just like the other students, why would the UC not accept the courses? I posit the kids from CCCS may be as prepared for college classes as the next students…
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 109,
so when you say:
” what about those who firmly believe in evolution or the green men people…can they conduct science inquiry effectively? ”
since we have good objective evidence to support the evolutionary models, the answer would seem yes. Indeed much of present biology research is based on evolution at its root and observationally this research is being very effective.
Believing in green men is more interesting. In some cases medicaton may help.
More seriously, if a belief does not interfere with an evidence based approach, science works effectively. If we impact the evidence based approach, the quality of science degrades rapidly.
It is a fair question to ask whether we care about science being effective. As I noted, the justificaiton for effective science is purely pragmatic: it improves the probability of continued existence.
Report comment to moderator
not if they are taught that when science contradicts scripture, science is wrong.
you are advocating Cargo Cult Science. It is the exact opposite of education.
Report comment to moderator
sigh error in post 114:
you are demonstraintg a good mastery of religion. Just like one might say be a good farmer, but a poor theologian.
Darn it when the selection material disappears.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 115,
sorry I made a modest correctio to postt 144: material got deleted as I submitted it.
as to passing the test but doiong well in college.
Well it would depend on what they are studyign in college doesn’t it?
If they are studying Evangelical Christinaity the prepartation is very good.
If they are preparing to be scientists, I have more concern. We have two issues here:
1) the compendium of material which is foundational for further study
2) an understanding of the basic process of science
It is possible with ones fingers crossed to learn the foundational material for science and dmeonstrate it by test.
The process itself, howeve,r is really not measured by test and I suggest the religiously based scinece text are actually specifically undermining the ascientific process. so no, I suspect that even if they do well on tests they will find themselves challenged by the context and process.
There are some annecdotal stories here of which my favorite are ehrman’s, even though his storeis are form within a theological framework and yet he still encountered counter intuitive behavior.
So no, the test for the key issues here I suggest actually tells us very little.
Report comment to moderator
magwah,
if I got affect and efect right it was pure luck.
I make no pretense of my mastery of language.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 118,
as noted, the students may indeed gain entry based purely on testing.
They do not get a pass on the course content based on passing off a religious text as a science text.
It is rougher to get in purely on testing, but this is their choice and their decision.
Report comment to moderator
Magwah is advocating a compartmentalization postmodern model for the process of scientific discovery of knowledge. I love it so!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
If the students are applying to a public university then they know they will be exposed to another view of things, so Cargo Cult Science=(name calling again?) In debate class I heard that the one who looses their cool has lost the argument.
How is the CCCS a problem if the students are prepared for entrance exams? If the student can read and understand well enough to pass an ACT,SAT or CPT test then I’m sure the Professors at UC can have a fair shot at educating the students or reindoctrinating them.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 126,
but as I joted, your comment here:
“How is the CCCS a problem if the students are prepared for entrance exams? ”
is problematic since science is fundamentally a process and not a body of knowledge. And it is not clear (more correctly it is very clear) whether CCCS is committed to teaching the process behind science.
Now again, not everyone need by a scientist. But these individuals are explicitly making it much more difficult for them to consider this an option.
Report comment to moderator
magwah,
look at my post 24.
the sutdents can take a course which does indeed cover the foundational material as expected by UC
OR
they can take a test as you suggest.
I believe you are creating a controversy where in fact there is none.
All that is being asserted is that these students can not get entrance credit for a transcript based entry for a religous course being presented as a science course.
They can indeed as you suggest take exams to demonstrate mastery of the material.
Report comment to moderator
Yes Musing…I hear you. The students applying at UC can’t be total Kool Aid drinkers though…or they would not be applying at UC, knowing what they are likely to get. I went and am still going to a public university..even old Kool Aid afficionados like myself managed to gain by the education offered there, the science department had their shot at me a few times, still I am stubbornly an ignorant Christian in some peoples view.
I am saying that if the student can read and understand well enough to pass an ACT,SAT or CPT test then I’m sure the Professors at UC can have a fair shot at educating the students or reindoctrinating them.
Report comment to moderator
Magway, I’m not calling you names. I am pointing out that your method of acquiring knowledge is equivalent to south pacific islanders building intricately detailed wooden motorcycles in the hopes of pleasing the gods enough to make them run.
You are an ignorant person. Christian or not, and that is not calling names but pointing out a fact. Fortunately an ignorant state is correctable, but those who adhere to “when the bible is wrong, it is not the bible is wrong” as a mantra are unable to resolve this.
If you sincerely believe that education is just memorizing things from a book, then it is clear why you don’t understand what all the hubbub is about.
Report comment to moderator
Freedom of Religion is at stake, its not that complicated.
Either we succumb to the views of atheist, agnostics, Marxists, socialists, far off the left cliff liberal’s, or we as Believers will be punished and our children will not be allowed to attend UC schools. The grades, scores for college matter little to these people, they DEMAND that our children believe, and be at the very least taught the opposite of our religious beliefs. They believe they’ve found a loop-hole, to strip the young college hopeful from going to UC schools.
We as Believers should not be alarmed by this strategy, but realize this is but the beginning of what is to come.
Canada has already put many laws into practice, forbidding the Scriptures which call homosexuality a sin, NOT TO BE UTTERED in public. We think it can’t happen in the U.S.A. ? – well of course it can.
Believers will either stand for Christ or they’ll cave in, for just a morsel of _______, fill in the blank. Remember Esau and Jacob. I’m not willing to cave in, my LORD will take care of this, HE’s in control, even if all we see is the world gasping for more control, more power, more sinful desires to abound. We only need look at abortion, we have become so accustomed to this horrific crime -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, how many chariots were there?
Does the sun stand still at the battle of Jericho?
Do quail come from the sea?
Do rabbits chew their cud?
Stop your pernicious babbling about things you know nothing about. It is tiresome.
Report comment to moderator
Rattle on – count the chariots if you must!
Report comment to moderator
that you cannot defend the nonsensical claim of an inerrant bible is telling. that is at the root of this foolish lawsuit by this foolish school, and it is indefensible.
why do sensible christians not clean their own houses? i do not understand this big tent idiocy, it makes otherwise rational people look like fools.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus exclaims:(Magway, I’m not calling you names. I am pointing out that your method of acquiring knowledge is equivalent to south pacific islanders building intricately detailed wooden motorcycles in the hopes of pleasing the gods enough to make them run.)
Now please Erasmus, explain again how you are not calling me names? I think your method of comparison…looks suspiciously like name calling even to one as ignorant as you purport me to be.
Erasmus…education is not memorizing things from a book, and that is why it is of paramount importance to let people from all belief systems partake of the public university system for open debate…so ideas can be shared. I think I have a clear picture of the issues at stake. I sense that these restrictions on the courses accepted at UC are punishment for dissenting views.
Pernicious babbling…nasty names are still nasty even when they must be looked up
Respect for people…that was something I pray I managed in my education…ignorant as you seem to believe I am.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 129,
acutaly I suspect that your comment here:
“Yes Musing…I hear you. The students applying at UC can’t be total Kool Aid drinkers though…or they would not be applying at UC, knowing what they are likely to get.”
may or may not be true. It is a truism that the young feel invulnerable. given how strong willed I was when youngger, I suspect you will find some strong willed individuals who will go there anticipating that they can demonstrate the error in the UC approach.
My comment here is nore power to them. i have no problem with dissent in ideas in university.
i do have a problem with individuals insisting under the cloak of religious freedom that they should get credit for course which do not match the foundational needs.
And since they can get in by examination, I suggest the issue is moot.
mind you they will have to take additional exams above and beyon your continued reference to traditional ACT,SAT or CPT tests.
In this case I believe they will have to take subjects tests as a minimum in the fields for which they are missing entries on their transcripts.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 131,
but of course no one is arguing that CCCS can not teach their versions of the science courses.
The assertion is that these courses do not meet the UC standards for acceptance for entry into UC. As such it appears they will have to take additional tests to demonstrate their proficiency.
There is no religious discrimination: CCCS can do what ever they want.
There is also no religious favoritism: a course which does not meet UC standards is not automatically qualified just because CCCS raises religious arguments.
And each side can knowingly and with full understanding of how this will play out make reasoned and rational decisions.
Report comment to moderator
magwah,
now I am a bit puzzled.
By the nature of your questions, I was expecting a challenge on what is meant by objective evidence.
Did I miss that in reading your posts?
Report comment to moderator
Musing…what is meant by objective evidence…I do not want to disappoint you…
Report comment to moderator
magwah, it is not name calling to point out that you have a deep misunderstanding of what science does. in fact, my analogy is perfectly appropriate. if you feel that is calling you names perhaps you are considering the weight of the argument against your position.
people of all belief systems should participate in open debate. first they must meet the criteria set by the university. classes in which students are told that where the bible is wrong, it is not wrong are not classes that fulfill this criteria. there is a long history of such judicial decisions in this country.
pray tell, why is my characterization of victoria off the mark? is it not true? i could have called her names, instead i characterized her actions. you are more than a little confused, my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Good manners are not a point of confusion for me.
If I had to choose between being lacking in manners or in scientific knowledge in your opinion…than I am happy with my lot.
You do realize I’m sure, that the inconsistencies you are referring to are not addressed solely by people who lack faith? There is more than one school of thought on how these chariots and the sun…and I know of a couple further common areas that are attacked that you didn’t mention…but I’m sure you could. My primary goal isn’t to dispute any of this Biblical inerrancy.
This is a public university and all views should be publicly debated. CCCS has been around and sending students to UC for longer than a few years…I posit that the dissent and debate the CCCS students may be causing has in turn caused the increased scrutiny by the university.Has anyone ascertained how these students that the university is concerned about from CCCS have done in the classes they have attempted? I could be off the mark…but being I belive God created the Earth and humanity…I can work on feelings like this.
I am also a fan of questioning, so I have questions. I’m not satisfied with what I’m reading in the aticles as to the reasoning behaind this scrutiny. Why aren’t we hearing about how the students are performing?
Silencing dissenting voices in the manner this university is using is problematic
Report comment to moderator
I posit that the dissent and debate the CCCS students may be causing has in turn caused the increased scrutiny by the university.
Another evidence free assertion. Just because you can’t stand it that your position is reducible to the equal time for all ideas no matter how stupid democratic fallacy. Now you are dreaming up university conspiracies, like maybe it’s because these homeschooled-bible-aint-wrong-when-it’s-wrong students are pwning professors and those uppity liberals can’t stand it.
rofl.
I fully agree with you. All views should be welcome. But you have to have the prerequisite training. This biology class is cargo cult science. It is reasonable to assume an equivalent amount of shoddy scholarship and intractable philosophy of knowledge from anything that inerrantists put together.
And then since you have repeated it enough to now believe it (conveniently forgetting that it is just an evidence free assertion), you end with it.
Silencing dissenting voices in the manner this university is using is problematic
Classic.
Report comment to moderator
i mean really. you are obviously a smart person.
bats simply are not birds under any philosophy of biology nor any taxonomic system that reflects the relationships discovered from molecular phylogenetics or evolutionary cladistics. it is simply not true. yet your bible claims it.
should be enough for you to drop the inerrant bit.
if you do that, then it becomes clear why this school is shortchanging their students and trying to privilege their intellectual laziness with a religious argument.
Musing is awesome. She stands up for reason. Where are all the other christians who understand this issue? They run away instead of setting their brothers and sisters straight. Clean your house people.
Report comment to moderator
Is Musing a guy or a gal?
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 144,
and does it matter?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 139,
the complete derivaton is a bit slow in general, since there are foundational steps which must be agreed to for a successful discussion here.
And everytime I pursue the “cliff notes” version, there are clear misunderstanidngs which cloud the discussion.
So lets run an experiment and see how the long verion might turn out.
As I have stated, I am a skeptic. and this drives me to look for what few things in the world I can say that I know. Fortunately or unfortunatley I still rememebr bits from my high school philosophy course, and I have always delighted in Descrates:
“cogito ergo sum”
I suggest that as stated, the point is a tautology.
And we can draw a few small conclusions from it:
1) there is an “I” which I can prove to myself exists, although I have no way to prove it to others
2) this “I” has what we will definitonally call “thoughts” (cogito)
Are we in agreement so far?
If we are, then I suggest the challenge is to see if we can provide any taxonomies for these “thoughts” to categorize them and manipulate them.
As a definitional statement I suggest that these “thoughts” are the subjective.
Are we on track so far?
Report comment to moderator
magwah/erasmus,
now I am watching yor discussion here.
One thing which I hope everyone realizes is that this is not a “polite” framework for debate.
As described in the posting policies, debate here is considered a contact sport.
What is to hoped is that the focus is on the ideas and concepts and not the personalities of the individuals.
Just some observations.
Report comment to moderator
magwah ,
so based on your care in the use of language and a number of your inferences, is it reasonable to assume you are a professor?
Whether you are or not is, of course, irrelevant to the discussion.
I have found, however, that many professors I have dealt with so far have a structure and form to the argument which at times is differemt from the non-academic, and it may let me help tailor the discussion so it is most fruitful to both of us.
Report comment to moderator
As per post 147.I’m good to debate in most formats. Thank you for the edifying clarification on debating…I think no format of human discousre precludes respect for another persons feelings.Call me old fashioned but there it is.
I am just not by nature combative or abusive…no contact sports for me I suppose. I don’t call peoples actions by names designed to be offensive, because if I bother debating at all I do like to keep it constructive. Not that I’m so far above ranting,raving or name calling…it’s just not something I would spend time and effort on purposefully.
Yesterday I was able to spend time thinking about issues and responses and it was great…today I have a few things simmering where I am not at such leisure…school starts Monday…I have played hooky long enough I have to make some plans.
Erasmus did say something that I am kind of wondering about…just as an aside..
Do you believe the public school prepares most American high school students for a freshman science class? And if so than I wonder why we are so very short on scientists. I realize I’ve gone off topic in some regard…but I wonder because I know a rather large number of college freshman and have some access to their academic achievements. This farmiliarity with the quality of science instruction(any instruction ) that typifies a college freshman class has led me to wonder what prerequisite training to be in a college class is so lacking in the BJU books and so well documented within the public high school courses?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Descrates:
“cogito ergo sum” taken from his “Discourse on Method”
Descartes was concerned with both dualism and rationalism…both were used to elevate human reason and knowledge above any revelation. Cartesian ratioanalism was thus used to expell God from the scientific process…so I bet you are not so suprised he isn’t a philosopher I stand in admiration of.
I am opposed to Descrates take on the basis for determining existence….
I think Descartes sat by himself in a dark room too much and therby did irreparable damage to his brain…
That isn’t terribly respectful to Descartes…but the man is very very dead. I hope you are not such a devoteee that I have offended you…
As an aside…I heard way too tooo much Descartes debate during the Terri Schiavo situation….
Report comment to moderator
magwah i don’t think that high school science classes are doing a good enough job covering what science is and how it does it. i am not sure that we can expect much more from high school teachers and curriculums than what we have now. but I do strongly believe that the curriculum and course materials used by the school in this instance fall very far short of covering these topics even compared to the average high school curriculum.
in particular, the caveat “where the bible is wrong the bible is not wrong” is devastating to the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge in general. further as i have shown it is not logically tenable. the short of it is that you cannot expect a reasonable education from such a method, and I suggest that the university of california has every reason to demand that students that have received this sort of instruction be forced to take a remediation course that covers those topics in a way that does not do serious injury to the educational process and to the philosophy of science and knowledge in general.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 150,
but my question of course is, is “cogito ergo sum” a tautology: that is true as stated being proved by itself?
Remember, I am not trying to prove my existence to you, merely trying to prove my existence to myself.
It is a valid challenge to challenge this, but I suggest that challenging this simple step is a very deep can of worms indeed!
I am not particularly fond of the rest of Descartes disucssions here, in fact they were so long ago that I have forgotten most of them.
I have a tendency to pick up what I consider useful concepts wherever I may find them and then apply to meet my needs independent of the intent of the proposer of the original idea.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 149,
I suspect that respect for the feelings of another becomes highly situational dependent.
I know of many situations in which I act for which the feelings of the others is not only totaly immaterial, but in fact considering those feeeling may in fact literally risk the lives of the group.
In any case, this is a contact sport debating site, and many individuals here are more than happy to execute hard body blocks.
By the same token, however, the rules, when they are followed, are to focus all the energy one wants on the idea or concept but we are to respect the posters.
As with much of life, at times these rules seem to become highly elastic.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I think I did answer…about Descartes. I disagree with his assertion and it is not tautology…it doesn’t prove itself. I know it is a can of worms…you know it…Can a Christian who believes in the Bible, as anything apart from a book of stories,support Descartes? Do you?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
“where the bible is wrong the bible is not wrong”
I can see where that concerns a peson who does not take the Bible to be inerrant. I am however thinking this is not a direct quote from BJU? I do not have a science text about the house…the texts I do have on the shelves, do not have those words.
I believe the Bible is inerrant…but I also know that mans understanding of the text is not. Man is not perfect and is not perfectible. I therefore don’t have so much reaction to the idea of inerrancey as some? Keeping in mind man’s understanding is less than perfect has enabled me
to do well enough in life academically and I am blessed in my faith. Did you know Michelangelo’s Moses has horns, and why?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 154,
so how is “cogito ergo sum” false?
I certainly support this statement of Descartes: I suggest it is based on a deep concept of what is meant by existing.
I am happy to drive this lower and lower if you like, but I suspect there is not much profit there.
If you are asserting that I can not demonstrate to myself that I exist to my satisfaction, how would you demonstrate that?
After all we have not yet proved that you exist?
Report comment to moderator
magwash post 156,
so I will then grant your point that you can not prove that you exist for the sake of argument.
Since you do not exist, how do you prove that anything exists?
And your response?
Report comment to moderator
Musing…
I’m a figment of your imagination sent here to see if you are indeed in existence
I’m not into existentialism..I’m the, “Who is God and Who then is man?” questioner…as boring as you find that…well…I am tired of existentialism, I am surrounded by 18-24 year olds…and they are huge on existentialism. Angst also…I hear about, focus on self is tiring. I can hook you up with people who want to talk this ad nausem…but please…I’m OK with being imaginary and Magwash should likely do that wash…school Monday and all.
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 156,
ah if you dont exist then I can ignore you arguments then can’t I.
which I suggest means that your comments about:
“I’m the, “Who is God and Who then is man?” ”
Have no meaning.
I am going to get picky here, but unless you provide an argument regarindg demonstration of your existence, then I suggest that you can ask the question regaridng who is god and who is man.
By contrast if you assert that you can ask the question “Who is God and hwo is man” then I suggest that in asking the question you demonstrate Descartes “cogito ergo sum”.
I believe we are the following stalemate:
1) you agree to the simplest aspect of “cogito ergo sum”: I assure you I have no intention of pursuing any other aspect of Cartesian philosophy or existensialism that I am aware of
or
2) you can’t raise the question of “who is god, who is man”
Your move.
Report comment to moderator
magwah how do you reconcile the claim that rabbits chew their cud? grasshoppers creep with four legs? the sun stand still? from a high place one can view all the nations of the earth? these are straightforward errors at odds with scientific understanding.
this is not even brining the numerical errors contained in chronicles and kings. in short there is no possible way to believe the bible is inerrant without also believing that nothing can be known. i suggest that you flipping the light switch disproves this hypothesis every single day.
from upthread, again, to verify the claim that these textbooks do include that information
Report comment to moderator
Musing…you are way too smart for me. I thought I had clarified that…
I’m a figment…and I’m Ok with your ignoring me,I’ve learned what I wanted to in this debate and I thank you.
The talk you seem hot to have is bound in existentialism.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around,will it have made a sound?….I’m old…I hear about this regularly and everyone I hear about it from thinks they are the greatest philospher, maybe they are?
So, aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
Report comment to moderator
magwah post 161,
but of course I am not interested in wheterh you are a figment for me.
You told me that ou considered questons of the form “who is god, who is man”.
I suggest that since ou considered these questions you proved my point with repsect to proving it to yourself.
Can we continue or do we have to belabor the point.
After all it was you who said I’m the “who is God, who am man” questioner
And all I am noting is that there was a you to ask the question.
Report comment to moderator
Now that I hope we have confirmed that you are happy to conclude that you exist and I am happy to conclude that I exist, I suggest we can get to the plausibly more interesting questions.
I will work purely from my perspective. I suggest that it will, however, generalize nicely.
One quick observation: the argument is totally flawed when applied to an organism which does not have a sense of its own existence.
NOw when I look at my thoughts there are a multitude of thoughts of various forms.
I note, however, that some of these thoughts have the following charactieristics:
1) they are repeatable: what i think is happening is happening over and over
2) they are correlatable: we can sequence on thought with the commencing of another
There is an even more interesting characteristic: there are thoughts which claim to be coming form other entities (examples might be magwah asserting that existentialism is not an interesting topic).
And on certain items these are repeatable, correlatable, and there is modest agreement on these points from entities claiming to be others.
As a purely taxonomic argument, I will call these observations.
And while you apparently are denying your existence, do you disagree that I am perceiving these thoughts which I will call observations?
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
“1) all the rocks have been demonstrated to at one time have been molten: thermodynmaic cooling arguments for the earth (which have an error which underestaimates the earths age) lead to a minimum age of about 100 million years
2) plate tectonic arguments for motions of say Indai lead to a minimum estimate of the age of the earth of about 250 million years (and this is an estimate which by its nature underestimates the earths age)
3) radioactive dataing by several methods leads to an age of the earth in billions of years
4) solar system and astrophysical observations and comparison with experiment lead to an age of the sun of perhaps 5 billon years and suggest that for mechanics reasons, planets must form soon after the formation of the sun
If we are to reduce the estimated ages of the earth by say a factor of 10,000X or so (to yield a 10,000 or so year old earth), then energy release rates require dynamic behavors (heating, earthwuakes, heat loss) which would prove temrinal to life as we know it and are not supported by the data.”
Thorn:
Thats nifty. Here are some better questions.
1. If the solar system evolved, why do 3 planets spin backwards and over 30 moons revolve backwards?
2. What is the moon’s origin, much less any other moon for that matter?
3. Please explain how strings of galaxies have formed? Why is it, that as far as we can see out into space, galaxies are developed, but not distorted, contorted, or severly twisted in shape?
4. Please explain how 40 stars sit right next to a black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and how they evolved?
5. If the universe is billions of years old, please explain why colliding galaxies have yet to homogenize?
I can keep going
If rocks were once molten please explain why so much gold is at the surface of the earth? Plate tectonics is highly flawed, radioactive dating assumes a constant rate of decay which is a flawed assumption, and if the sun is 5 billion years old, where is the segregation of space dust, must less how is there any left at the rate it which it is being absorbed or blown out of the solar system?
Please explain how planets forming so quick after the birth of our sun is even possible? Considering there is not even enough hydrogen and helium orbiting the sun to produce 1 jupiter much less saturn. We could also get into how venus happens to have mountains, but is there even a point at this rate? Binary stars, much less a planet next to THREE stars kicks cosmolgical evolution in the butt.
The cosmos actually screams at a young universe, and thus a young earth.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Astronomy and Physics, which is too bad because you seem inquisitive and interested in the goings-on of the world.
Report comment to moderator
yeah it’s like he read Battlestar Galactica and now he is an astrophysicist.
try talk origins. or you know you can just say “Ain’t it grand, QED”
Report comment to moderator
And what aspect of Astronomy or physics have I violated?
It is true that about 40 stars sit next to a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Please in all your fundamental wisdom explain how these stars formed OVER black hole gravity over millions of years?
Report comment to moderator
i dunno thorn i am a biologist. since you are clearly educated in these matters, why don’t you tell me? does it have to do with POOF?
Report comment to moderator
Oh but Erasmus I lack the fundamental understandings that Tyler so clearly has. Remember I must watch battlestar galactica which is why I asked for the explanation from those supposedly grounded in the fundamentals.
But I guess Nature just publishes science fiction stories:
” “The black hole’s inactivity [today] suggests that the central few light years doesn’t contain enough raw material to make stars. And the enormous gravitational tidal forces around the black hole would seem to prohibit stars from forming even if the material were there: it’s hard for a cloud of gas to contract into a star under its own gravity when something that weighs as much as four million stars is sitting next door.” Jeff Kanipe, “A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Not So Far Away,” Nature, Vol. 446, 5 April 2007, p. 601.”
One of these days I’ll learn how to highlight in blogs, but they havent shown that on BG yet.
Report comment to moderator