Inerrancy falls in that camp from my reading. There’s a single verse that the basis for the entire doctrine.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
This verse is interpreted to mean that it is inerrant. There’s a wide gap between inerrant and useful for teaching from my own reading. There are many people wiser than me who disagree on the subject.
My own interpretation is simply that Jesus constantly spoke in metaphor because it was more useful for teaching. Why would we assume that the creation of everything, that involves so many intricate details, would be any different? Would we expect books on microbiology and geology to accompany Genesis?
Of course not. Genesis, Revelation and Job are 3 books of the Bible that don’t document events as observed. I believe (not 100%) that all the rest do.
Bookenders as I call them, people who only want to argue about Genesis and Revelation, are a concern because they take away from the real message to pursue an argument that nobody can win. It’s not productive and it’s not useful.
If everyone was convinced that the earth was or wasn’t 6,000 years old tomorrow it wouldn’t change a single facet of life on earth for anyone. It would only remove one argument. IMO, that makes it a pointless subject to debate and only creates friction.
Romans 14 is pretty clear about this too.
It's also important to note that "inerrancy" means very different things to different people. I remember one evangelical preacher who informally explained it as essentially "God made sure that nothing got into the scripture that he didn't want in the scripture," which is a much weaker claim and is essentially synonymous with what it means for something to be scripture.
> Of course not. Genesis, Revelation and Job are 3 books of the Bible that don’t document events as observed. I believe (not 100%) that all the rest do.
The Book of Ezekiel has a lot of pretty wild stuff, but I guess you can say it's supposedly documenting Ezekiel's visions (but isn't that also true of The Revelation?). The Book of Daniel is also apocalyptic literature, much of which was likely not intended to be read as a document of observed events. There's also a ton of poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) that I wouldn't consider "documents of events as observed."
Prophecy falls into that camp. Much of the Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus himself though.
Unfulfilled prophecy is tougher.
I generally refer to Bookenders as people who focus on creation and the end of the world.
The message is everything in between and fascinating.
That’s really the root of it. If you read the entire Bible, you’ll see common themes that are reiterated over and over. You’ll see patterns of human behavior that haven’t changed in thousands of years.
Reading the entire Bible provides so much more context. There’s not nearly as much left up to discussion after that because you’ll have a much better understanding of e everything.
I mean, nobody talks about it but one of the biggest themes of the entire Old Testament is idolatry. We think about that today as worshiping gold statues but it’s just as easy to frame in terms of political parties, our own anger and biases, etc.
Another is the dangers of pride.
Explanations of this form are extremely easy to vary, which is why they are not good explanations.
Sure, but I don't think the debate is over whether creationists derive a sense of purpose from their beliefs. I have no doubt that they do. You'd never need to discuss things like fossils or evolution or cosmology to determine whether one derives a sense of purpose from one's beliefs.
My assumption was that these debates are about the epistemological status of these claims, which is largely independent of whether one derives a sense of purpose.
If you're spending lots of effort making what appear to be good-faith arguments toward some conclusion, but that conclusion is in fact an axiom that you hold, then that's intellectually dishonest. If "Bible is true and scientifically accurate" is one of your axioms, then it's intellectually dishonest to provide some supposed piece of evidence that supports this claim (e.g. supposed missing links in the fossil record), because by definition 1) no evidence is necessary to support an axiomatic claim and 2) no evidence or explanation can possibly change your mind.
Now, I am not going to defend Kent Hovind's intellectual honesty. I think he does have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive (tax evasion). But you cannot legitimately accuse him -- or any YEC that I've encountered -- of trying to paper over the fact that he assumes the truth of the Bible.
But there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile that factual claim except to reiterate that it is an axiom (or, if you like, a trivial corollary from the axiom that the Bible is true). The supposed existence of missing links is completely irrelevant, because even if those links weren't missing, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. Ancient flood myths are completely irrelevant, because even if such myths weren't widespread, his conclusion would be that evolution is false.
To clarify, I'm not claiming that creationists conceal their beliefs about the Bible. I'm referring to intellectual dishonesty.
But like you said in (2), they start with different assumptions. Their logic is totally sound if you agree with the assumptions. I spent some time reading and watching YEC material to have a better understanding of their positions. While there were certainly some really stupid arguments, most were sound but based on either an assumption of the existence of God (unprovable either way) and some implications of that, or a flawed understanding of physics/chemistry/biology. The latter were the only arguments that could be refuted because they were the only ones where you could point out the specific flaw in reasoning.
Until you find the difference in assumptions, you can't effectively argue against their position. And, then, only by talking about the assumptions and not the conclusions/implications.
A lot of these beliefs arise from very fundamental axioms of belief that only show up through these high-order belief systems.
If you fundamentally believe you should follow the evidence no matter what and THAT is the highest priority of your belief, then you are (more likely) going to fall into the camps of hard science and nothing but the science.
Or perhaps in a different vein, do you fundamentally believe you are a good person fighting evil? Then anyone who disagrees is THE ENEMY and must be DESTROYED. And not only are they doing bad things, but they are fundamentally BAD PEOPLE. They're not just baby killers, they're Satanic Baby Killers.
Of course, we are all a vibrant mix of these beliefs, and some may change over time with enough exposure. And many often hold beliefs counter to other base axioms and a careful walk may help expose and nudge their higher-order beliefs. But recognizing that it isn't just about Evolution or just about the world being flat, it's actually built on layers and layers of logic from very low-fundamental beliefs is key.
Because even if you prune some of the top facts, the base layers will remain, and they'll adapt to stay aligned with their core beliefs.
And within the Christian communities I saw so much harm from the various biases and non-critical methods it was heart breaking. Sadly it can still be hard to leave when you're taught you're choosing pleasure, hell fire, selfishness, and abandoning absolute truth and love.
How does it lead to that? I feel like that's a false assumption that many people make, religious or not.
What I appreciate about your comment also is you mention the necessity to understand their presuppositions and reason that way (at least sometimes). I feel like the issue with many discourses going on right now is a lack of good faith understanding of the other "sides" presuppositions.
And yet, it can be so painful for someone to even pretend they can identify with the following belief for example this belief
> So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) then, on their world-view, science must be wrong, full stop
The much easier tact for lets say a standard pro-science metropolitan is to decide the YEC-er person actually knows what is "true" (e.g. what the metropolitan thinks is obvious) but is actively choosing to do wrong. Then you can refute their point as purposely provoking _and_ also put them in the "bad people" box with one little mental facade.
I'm not trying to build a purposely weak example of either group, I think all humans have a simplifying mechanism when it comes to viewpoints/ideas and that we need that to survive in some sense- and that we do it all the time probably in benign ways. But acknowledging what other people believe is a great skill to build I think.
But in my experience, it nonetheless creeps out to affect other areas of their life. YECs are often afflicted with other conspiracy theories, not just flat earthers but also climate denialsm, and these days, COVID denialism.
I find that the assumption isn't so much the teleology as the group superiority. It's not so much that the Bible is inerrant as that they are the ones who hold the truth, and those who disagree must in all cases be wrong -- and not merely wrong, but out to get them. The appeal to teleology is more about literal divine right, that "God shed his grace on thee". That leads them to make alliance with those who don't accept young-earth creationism but nonetheless share their nationalistic, chauvinist, xenophobic aims.
That's because you find the data persuasive. They don't. That in and of itself does not make them idiots.
That makes them not merely wrong, but dangerous to me. They will go out of their way to make my life worse, without being able to judge the cost to themselves. Regardless of what derogatory name I choose to call it, our outlook is fundamentally at odds. They've shown repeatedly that they wish to use it to harm me, and my names for them are going to be negative.
The only solution, if any, is democratic: containing the damage and reducing the numbers. They cannot be persuaded, but other people can. And unfortunately, I don't think that's all that effective, either -- in part because they ally themselves with other conspiracy theorists who insulate them from some of the consequences of their actions. They may not agree, but don't attack each other, and bolster common causes. Enough to win elections, especially when geographic, demographic, and historic quirks assign more political power to some regions than others.
If it were just creationists, they'd be (relatively) harmless kooks. As it is, they're always a step away from theocracy.
Flat earth can be confidently debunked in quite a large number of ways, including direct experience.
YEC is, at its core, fundementally undisprovable. There really no way to prove that the universe wasn't recently created by some force with a consistent apparent history. Indeed, there are philosophers who have made strong arguments that we live in a simulation which makes such a "created with history" scenario seem more plausible.
> If you accept this premise, then there is actually a logically defensible line of reasoning that leads you to Christianity
I rather doubt that. You may be able to show that some of these beliefs are logically consistent given that premise, but that is a far cry from showing that they are logically derivable from that premise as you seem to be saying.
I do think there is data that will persuade these people, but nobody is willing to out the time and effort in to do so. (Since these are quite divergent beliefs, any education program would probably need to be customized on a per person basis.)
Neither of us are idiots, we both know what we're doing. The conflict is when I make an assertion about geometry (general) that doesn't hold for geometry (Euclidean) (or the reverse, the other person makes a general assertion that doesn't hold for non-Euclidean geometry). Unless we sit down and compare our base assumptions (axioms), we cannot resolve this apparent conflict.
I'm not saying this is universally the case, there are contrarian trolls and idiots out there, but oftentimes people are reasonably rational but are starting from different positions. This leads to conflicts in politics, economics, religion, and, yes, the understanding of the physical world. It's not helpful to call them all idiots because many times they aren't, they just have different base assumptions (or priorities, often, in the case of politics and economics). And calling them idiots only leads to an emotional, not rational, "discussion". Take a step back, don't be a jerk, and listen to them, work backward to the actual point of disagreement and then focus on it (or not, once discovered you may realize there is no resolution that will satisfy either or both of you).
As so, science doesn't have a "foundational" assumption (because it's willing to change its assumptions). Rather, science subjects assumptions to evidence - not the other way around...
Yes, it does: it assumes that evidence is a reliable guide to truth.
"evidence" and "truth" are very semantically related. By semantics, "evidence is a reliable guide to truth" is not nearly an assumption... as it is a logical definition.
It's a bit like saying: "it assumes reddish color indicates red".
EDIT: "Reliable" is the problem word here. Remove it from your statement, and it certainly is no longer an assumption. That said, I don't see where science inherently makes the assumption that evidence is reliable...
Your having to hedge with "nearly" is an indication of the weakness of your position.
First, there is no such thing as a "logical definition". There are only definitions. Perhaps you meant "logical tautology" but in fact the idea that evidence is a reliable guide to truth is neither a definition nor a tautology, it is an assumption. And it is an assumption that is open to reasonable doubt. To wit:
> it assumes reddish color indicates red
It is far from clear that this is true. What does "reddish color" even mean? How can you define it without begging the question? How do you know that your subjective perception of "reddish color" is the same as mine?
A better example: solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space. So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false.
Now, if you'd rather use "logical tautology" that's fine by mean. It's close to what I meant. "Evidence" and "Truth" are very semantically related... so much that your statement earlier is almost a definition, not an assumption. By definition, Evidence is something that indicates truth. Again I think the word reliable does make the statement an assumption. But again, I don't see where science ever made the assumption that evidence is reliable...
As for your second example, it is not much better. I will again attempt to show you the problem with your argument.
>solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space. So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false
For your argument to hold, your definition of solid in your second statement must be incongruent. I'll try to show how.
> solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space
Here you've tacked on some definition to the word solid. That added definition being: "they are mostly empty space". Now let's look at your next statement
>So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false
This only logically true if you use two different definitions of the word solid. Otherwise your statement is nonsense, when substituting your implied definition of solid:
something that appears as not empty, but is in actually mostly empty space appearance indicates something that appears as not empty, but is in actually mostly empty space is actually false
An argument I’ve heard before is that God made the universe relatively recently (10k years ago or so) but with the appearance of age. Something like God “fast forwarded” through time to skip to the part where humans started recording history. In that theory both the majority of modern science and a strangely literal interpretation of the Bible can both be true at the same time. The scientists are unable to measure that God “fast-forwarded” the universe because he didn’t leave any evidence of it.
In my experience the majority of Christians don’t hold that view, but instead see Genesis as metaphorical, and thus it actually fits in rather well with the current Big Bang model. So well, in fact, that early on a lot of scientists rejected the Big Bang as “creationist rubbish.”
So the first question is, "Is there something besides the physical world -- besides atoms and energy and time?" If you say "yes", then you've ruled out materialism (which some people confuse with science).
There are a number of things in our human experience which (in my opinion) are inconsistent with a materialistic worldview. The sense of meaning and purpose is one. Morality is another. (Not trying to argue this here, just trying to answer the question.)
Then you can say, OK, but that could be Buddhism or Shintoism or Islam or anything. So the next set of questions might filter out reincarnation-style religions and get you down to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam); and then you might look specifically at evidence about Jesus' resurrection.
Not all Christians are Young Earthers; and Young Earthers are certainly not Flat Earthers. But there is this similarity: Christianity gives people something that atheism and materialism do not. And so when modern atheists say, "Belief in evolution is incompatible with belief in God -- you have to choose one or the other", then a lot of people will say, "Well if I have to choose, I'm going with God."
- https://www.livingwaters.com/why-christianity/ seems to short-circuit back into "god-given rule"
- https://carm.org/atheism/why-believe-christianity-over-all-o... assumes the Bible as a historical source of truth
- http://www.gospeloutreach.net/whychristianity.html - quotes beauty not present in atheism, otherwise Bible as a historical source
- https://creation.com/why-christianity says Christianity correctly diagnoses a humanity's fault (moral inconsistency), and then declares it superior because of which solution it chooses
They don't seem to answer "why is Christianity the source of meaning", but rather "why choose Christianity as religion", which is a different question, so I might have misrepresented them. Either way, none of them seem very logically conclusive to me.
That's right. The original question was:
> Why would some point of existence or meaning lead specifically to Christianity?
If you want to know "why is Christianity the source of meaning" that's an easier question to answer: it's because the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent Creator of the Universe loves you, and will give you everlasting life in paradise conditioned only on your acceptance of His sacrifice on the cross. Or something like that.
"Why would some point of existence or meaning lead specifically to Christianity?" presumes starting with no preferred solution: "existence has a meaning. Who discovered it?". It's much more interesting than "Christianity says existence has a meaning. What makes it right?"
If you're looking for the Christian answer to this, it is: no one discovered it. The meaning of life is not discoverable knowledge. It is instead revealed by God.
In history there have been thousands of religions with various beliefs, many of which ascribed purpose to the actions of believers which was considered significant how specifically does the purpose given to those who follow Christianity provide "a logically defensible line of reasoning that leads you to Christianity and thence to the inerrancy of the Bible" over any one of those other religions?
And if every religion gains equal weight then why not follow all of them equally using that same rationale?
I mean I don't particularly care what people believe, but that's a pretty strong statement.
It depends on the country. These movements are non - existant in France for instance. When we hear of them or is usually about the ones in the US (I do not think I heard about another country).
When we hear of them it is because something happened (the death of one of the leaders who blew up in his rocket IIRC), never because we have a hard time resisting them.
Out of curiosity I search in French for flat earth. All the hits are about the US (and sometimes UK) based movement.
This is the same for the young earth one, and creationism generally speaking.
But fear not, we have homeopathy as a national sport (and plenty of other alternative "medicine", taken seriously here)
I think they exist but just have a different flavor. In the U.S. we have Christian extremists, in France you have Muslim extremists.
I was talking about either flat earth, or the idea that earth is young. These are concepts which are completely foreign to France and not even carried by the religious extremists (maybe someone is telling this, but they have zero traction).
Specifically, I was commenting on
> one of the reasons that the secular world is having such a hard time effectively resisting these movements
1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't, I can't speak for the flat-earthers) and to dismiss them as idiots who will just go away is a serious mistake. They are very good at presenting convincing-sounding arguments, and refuting them can actually be quite challenging.
2. The root of their reasoning is a tacit acceptance of teleology, which cannot be logically refuted. They approach existential questions with the assumption that there has to be some kind of point to existence, some transcendent meaning or purpose. If you accept this premise, then there is actually a logically defensible line of reasoning that leads you to Christianity and thence to the inerrancy of the Bible, and thence to YEC (and even a flat earth if you're really being intellectually honest!) A failure to appreciate this is IMHO one of the reasons that the secular world is having such a hard time effectively resisting these movements. A life without purpose makes no sense to these people, just as a theory at odds with the data makes no sense to someone with a scientific mindset. So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) then, on their world-view, science must be wrong, full stop. No amount of data is going to persuade them otherwise.