@BruceAlderman I recently learned why moths actually are attracted to flames.

It's an evolutionary theory explanation, so you'll like it.

Basically, the moth navigates successfully because there is a single, distant light source in nature. The moth has evolved to know that when the light stays at one side of him, then he is traveling in a straight line.

However, if the moth happens across an artificial light source, it becomes confused and tries to fly parallel to that.

But because the source is close, the moth has to circle it to keep parallel. Eventually, it spirals into it.

So the problem now, is that I've set myself up to hear some other non-evolutionary explanation by a well meaning YEC. All right! Bring it on then!

Ding

From Websters dictionary: Pointless adj. Without a point. Debating creation vs. evolution is a pointless exercise, since neither side will budge, and each is stubbornly devoted to base assumptions that can neither be proven nor disproven.

I really hate this room.

@DavidStratton ROFL

Only cuz you just can't help yourself. You can sense the eminent sucking of your time, just over the event horizon.

@DavidStratton I recently changed by beliefs on it. But you might have a point (bad pun?). I changed my base assumptions first.

It's half past midnight here. I should probably check in on Creationism vs. before heading to bed.

@fredsbend So what do you believe now?

@BruceAlderman I've become an agnostic. I thought perhaps I've told you by now. It was almost a year ago that I finally decided that.

@fredsbend Oh, I thought you meant you had changed your beliefs again recently.

No.

@BruceAlderman But for a conversion of this magnitude, from YEC to agnostic (receptive to evolution), I believe a year old is pretty recent.

The moment I "threw up my hands" and quit is recorded somewhere in these chatrooms. I would be around Mar. 1st, 2014.

I've reviewed it two or three times since.

I'm pretty sure this is it.

It kind of looks like a rage quit, but it was long in coming. I was very emotional as I typed that.

I was finally letting go and it was scary.

@fredsbend Yeah, I got very close to that point in the mid-1990s. I was fed up with Christianity, especially the popular form of it in mid-1990s America. I almost gave it up. An online friend suggested I look into Taoism, and ironically that's what convinced me there was something to Christianity after all.

But I still have my issues with the Christian faith, and you all have probably seen me raise some of them in these chat rooms from time to time.

@BruceAlderman I have. What I haven't seen is a really good argument why you still believe. I remember you mentioned an experience, which I obviously cannot critique. It's meaning is very personal.

Other than that, I have wondered why you are a believer in light of some of the doubts you've mentioned that you have.

Well now that this is open again, I've got an essay soon about the theological implications of various perspectives of Genesis 1. Almost all of the anti-YEC stuff I've ever seen has been essentially about treating the science seriously. Very little touches on theology. Does anyone have any good resources they can recommend for why it's theologically important to be anti-YEC?

@curiousdannii Good question.

I bet there might be some theology on the Truth. Basically, if science facts are true, and the Bible is true, then OEC of some time is the correct interpretation.

I do hope you will share the essay.

@fredsbend If you're interested, I can. Ping me at Easter

@curiousdannii That's when it's due?

@fredsbend Yeah. Well the day before

What is it for? I didn't realize you were in theological school of some kind.

@fredsbend Yeah I'm doing an MDiv

I don't know why I didn't know that.

So you'll be The Rev. CuriousD.

I like it.

@fredsbend Nope, I'm not intending to be ordained ;)

I really have to go now. It's midnight and I'm still at work. yikes

@fredsbend I probably haven't mentioned it

@curiousdannii Bummer. That name woulda been bitchin.

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19821006#19821006 Wow I missed all of this amazing nonsense

@curiousdannii The flow of logic does make sense, but it is misguided.

@fredsbend I go back and forth. On some days Christianity seems crazily irrational. On other days, it seems to make perfect sense in a paradoxical way. I tend to be more active on internet forums when I'm in questioning mode, so it might seem like I have more doubts than I do.

--

@curiousdannii It's not that it's important to be anti-YEC, it's more that there's a better option than trying to read Genesis as a science book. Biologos has some good resources. Some examples:

Why should Christians consider evolutionary creation? | How have Christians responded to Darwin’s “Origin of Species”? | How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin?

I've also tackled the issue of the age of the earth, in the context of the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis, in my answer to How old is old earth creationism?

But yeah, the argument against YEC is mostly about taking science seriously, because from a theistic evolution or OEC perspective the age of the earth is not a theological issue.

Old Earth Ministries also has some resources you might find useful; for example, their index of rebuttals to YEC claims.

And here's an article from Reasons to Believe claiming that the big bang theory is taught in the Bible.

So I guess for some OECs, the age of the earth is a theological issue.

@BruceAlderman I'd hope being right and knowing the truth is always a theological issue.

@BruceAlderman This makes some sense. People tend to look for something they know when they feel lost.

How closely and seriously have you looking into the seeds of your doubting sessions?

Sorry, I'm going all psychology now. Since my conversion, I'm very interesting in the conversion process.

Being a data nerd, I want to define, quantify, and generalize it.

@fredsbend But how far do you take that? Jesus often talked about grain; does that mean farmers should look to the Bible for advice on planting and harvesting? Similarly, just because we can use the dates and ages scattered throughout the Bible to make a calaculation, does that mean we should?

I maintain that the Bible writers had no intention of instructing us about agriculture or cosmology; just because these things are tangentially mentioned in the Bible does not make them theological issues.

@fredsbend For me, doubt goes hand in hand with two things: 1) an intellectual approach to faith, and 2) a cultural approach to faith. An example of the first one would be philosophical arguments for Christianity. They always seem to fall short, reducing God to a caricature of himself, and I'm left wondering why anyone would want to worship such a being.

An example of the second would be attempts by Christians to write biblical teachings (or teachings presumed to be biblical) into secular law--for example, definitions of marriage or mandating creationism in the classroom. I often find myself agreeing with the Gandhi quote you posted here last year:

And yet I am one of those Christians, so I have a responsibility to do what I can to change those tendencies.

@BruceAlderman I think you missed my point. I'm positing that you might be able to make a case that being right and knowing the truth is a theological issue.

In essence, most Christian theology revolves around Righteousness.

Righteousness is the state of being right.

When right, you cannot be wrong. Obvious, but it needs to be said.

So if you do not know the truth on an issue when the truth can be known, then you are wrong.

Of course, the problem here is that his presumes the truth about Creation can be known. But most Christians probably do believe that one of the competing theories is essentially right, even though there certainly could be some method that led to Creation that we have no hope of knowing.

But despite any problems, I was more thinking out loud about a possible theology that might exist that OEC's and TE's might tout. Summed up as "being right and knowing the truth is a theological issue."

@BruceAlderman Help me understand this better.

First, the "intellectual approach to faith" creates doubt in your faith, though its purpose is to do the exact opposite, because they demean God's character in some way. Is this correct? Can you give a specific example?

Second, you feel like Christianity, as a group, is sometimes one you don't want to belong to. Is this correct?

It took a while to find it, but this came to mind:

@fredsbend Yeah, for example, most proofs for the existence of God leave me feeling like they're grasping at straws. I end up less convinced than I was before. On the other hand, after I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris' The End of Faith I felt like they were lashing out at something they didn't really understand, trying to find an argument that would stick. The result was that it strengthened my faith.

The quote is only somewhat related, but in principle, I see you saying that sometimes Christians act like idiots and "nobody wants to be part of the idiots."

@BruceAlderman Well, aren't you an enigma.

Now you're thinking, "no, not really."

That is very interesting actually.

I guess what you're saying is that both sides don't really have good arguments.

@BruceAlderman So then, is there a cultural element that strengthens your faith?

@fredsbend Yeah. When approaching faith as if it's an intellectual exercise, I just can't make any sense out of it. But at the same time it's too big and too serious a subject to dismiss just because I don't understand it. I probably sound like an agnostic.

Quite

A classic one, any way.

@fredsbend Culturally, I'd say Christian communities like The Simple Way and others that live intentionally according to the way they understand the teachings of Christianity, without trying to use the force of law to make others live by those same teachings--groups like that give me hope for Christianity.

@BruceAlderman I'm hearing that Integrity is probably in your top five values. Probably Honesty too.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus consistently stood up for the outcasts--the lame, the lepers, the poor, the prostitutes and tax collectors. As a result he came into conflict with those in power. But when Christians are in power, it's harder for Christians to stand up with the outcasts against the powerful.

@fredsbend I'd probably agree that's true.

Do you struggle often with moral conundrums?

Of the major Ethical frameworks (e.g. feminism, utilitarianism, egoism, Aristotle, Kant, etc.), which do you identify with more?

I'll have to get back to you on this one. It's been so long since I studies ethics in an academic setting that I can't really remember which framework is which.

Oh. Sorry about that. Generally,

feminism = altruism, heroic, save everyone even at the cost of your life.

utilitarianism = maximize benefit. Some add that you also minimize harm/cost

egoism = ultimately all choices are selfish.

Aristotole = choose the mean between the extremes.

Kant = (I might get this wrong) first apply the universality rule (can everyone logically make this same decision). Then kind of a weak utilitarianism after that.

There's others, but I don't remember them off hand

Let me redo egoism.

egoism = that you choose the decision that is best for your needs and desires.

I have a lot to say on egoism, so I wanted to be accurate there.

I believe Kant also employes a bit of the golden rule.

@BruceAlderman I was planning to look at Biologos, so thanks for the head start

@BruceAlderman As fredsbend said, if they're on the infalliable side of the scripture debate and accept the framework interpretation (for example) then the truthfulness of scripture will be a big theological point. But YECs also think that's very important. It's really a classic example that scripture must always be interpreted, and there's no default interpretation

@fredsbend Given those choices, I'd probably lean toward utilitarianism, mainly because many ethical choices don't involve heroism or universality, because sometimes the middle ground can be the worst possible choice, and because although we usually act according to our own interests, that's not always the right thing to do. So utilitarianism is the least objectionable.

@BruceAlderman And ironically, your reason for selecting that was very utilitarian.

Most people try to be utilitarians. It sounds the best on paper and seems the most fair (never mind the presumption that equity is inherently moral).

But this especially makes sense considering your high value of integrity and honesty.

And beyond that, I guess you fell for the pigeonhole question. Some answer that a synthesis of most or all of them is not only best, but required.

It sounds like you came close to that conclusion just now, and maybe you have in the past.

But let's get back to doubts now.

@fredsbend No, let's get back to arguing about creationism.

@BruceAlderman If that's what you want. I guess I am kind of putting you on the spot and taking over the room.

@curiousdannii I've seen the arguments OECs use in claiming scripture supports an old earth, but it seems to me it's mainly proof-texting. Things like, "ancient pathways" and "enduring foundations" are supposed to indicate an ancient universe, but I doubt they did so for the original audience.

I stated here some stuff in addition to the doubts and stuff, but you never got to respond the the creationism/theology stuff.

@fredsbend Here's what my church teaches about science and theology:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues."

I think I understand what you're saying about the theology of being right vs. wrong, but some things just aren't important enough theologically that being right matters. The origin of the universe is one of those things.

@BruceAlderman I agree that some things just aren't important. Many churches term this a so called "non-salvation issue."

But there seems to be a logical problem with that idea.

If you must be righteous to enter the kingdom of heaven, then every issue is equally important, for only one wrong thing makes righteous unrighteous.

I disagree with that characterization.

I feel like this kind of rhetoric was much more common before the reformation.

There is moral righteousness, and there is intellectual correctness. Both use the terms right and wrong, but give different meanings to the words.

Being intellectually incorrect about something has no bearing on being morally righteous. That's what Jesus was trying to get at in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

@BruceAlderman The main debate is over the genre of Genesis 1. If you believe that it was never intended to be understood as history but instead as a symbolic or allegorical scheme for a much greater time period, then it's not really proof texting

@BruceAlderman I believe I agree, but remember I'm arguing a hypothetical. One that I think is influenced by some things I read in Augustine or something.

Of course it will be very hard to demonstrate that you know what the author of Genesis was intending!

@curiousdannii You know, I've just had a greater question.

Why would anything before Abraham be important to the Israelites at all?

@fredsbend Everyone has some heretical beliefs. Some heretical beliefs will prevent you from making a contract with God guaranteeing eternal life, other's won't

It certainly satiates curiosity, but it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose other than that.

@fredsbend Well it is only 11 chapters. It's very spare, compared to the time period it covers (more than the rest of the OT)

I think there are a few important things in those 11 chapters:

it defines the problem of sin. Sin and death aren't natural.

Ah, yes, good point, but does that need to be taught?

It seems that most everyone feels like death is not natural, especially when in the midst of it.

@fredsbend many people today disagree completely, so I'd say yes.

Well, for sin, I agree. But not death.

Few cultures have come to truly embrace death.

And those that do/did have an extensive religion that mostly starts at death.

@fredsbend It may still be a minority view, but there are many people today who do think that it is natural. It may be unpleasant, but natural

Atheists, skeptics, etc. Yes. But they were a rare breed in Moses' time.

Some say non-existent.

the second major thing is that the threat of judgement is an insufficient strategy for dealing with the problem of sin. Two key verses are Genesis 6:5 and 8:21. Both say that every thought of man is thoroughly evil. The flood didn't really initiate any changes

I think there is a solid argument that death was never viewed as natural until Darwin.

I would say that it still accomplished its purpose, which was to show that the threat of judgement isn't enough.

@curiousdannii Well, also the whole eating the fruit thing. Threat didn't seem to prevent.

And so chapter 12 begins with God making entirely undeserved promises to abram

Well, now, how do you make that conclusion they were undeserved?

@fredsbend I'm thinking more of people that ask why God didn't just smite Hitler to prevent all the evil he started? Why doesn't he intervene more?

Well God did intervene once to wipe out sin. The chapters immediately after the flood are very reminiscent of the original creation, with the instruction to fill the earth again. God effectively rebooted the earth at the flood, but the human heart wasn't changed.

@curiousdannii I think it leaves more questions than it answers.

The flood shows that interventions like that won't help. We need a different kind of intervention. So God intervened at the cross to heal people from sin, and he'll intervene at the end of time to destroy the earth and make a new untainted one

@fredsbend Sure. There are lots of questions. But this is why I think it's included even though it's pre abraham

@curiousdannii That's probably the biggest question it leads to. Why should this other plan be any different?

There's also the looming question: did the original audience understand it this way?

@fredsbend The flood was a band aid fix. Whether the 'new' plan will be different I guess depends on what you believe about many other things in the Bible.

I don't think it was a backup plan though, I think it was always part of the plan. But to prepare us for the cross God had many other plans. He had the visible judgement of the cross that didn't scare anyone into obedience. He set up a theocratic nation with an ideal law whose people constantly worshipped other idols. He set up a dynasty of kings to represent him who behaved very very badly

God had to die himself to solve sin because nothing else can do it. That's the point of the OT I think

So you are arguing that Gen 1 - 11 served only a theological purpose in your paper?

@fredsbend Well I can't answer that, but I think they definitely would have noticed 6:5 and 8:21 and saw that the flood didn't accomplish anything as far as the heart of man is concerned

@fredsbend my essay will be on strictly Gen 1 I think. and yeah. I have a few points. On the pro-YEC side I'll be saying that it matters theologically because of the historicity of Adam and the non-goodness of death. On the other side I'll be saying that they believe it is important to read it as a polemic against the pagan religions around them (they worshipped the sun etc, but gen 1 says the sun exists to serve humans)

But I'd like another point or two for the anti-YEC side

* He had the visible judgement of the flood that didn't scare anyone into obedience.

@curiousdannii Just in Gen 1. Well, to me, I always couldn't make sense of Christianity unless Adam was literally real.

Well, there's a lot of ways to take this essay.

You might find yourself cutting content to stay within the page limits.

@fredsbend We don't have page limits, just word limits, and I always struggle to reach them

@curiousdannii 3000 ain't much. about 10 pages double spaced at 12 font size.

More like 8, actually.

I disagree with the debate being between literalistic and less literalistic, but haven't decided how to frame it yet

@fredsbend It's a longish one. We normally have 2500-3000. 3000 is half of one subject, or one eighth of a semester's work. I have a 2000 word essay due today. Really need to work on that...

@curiousdannii Well, get to it.

But the internet! So many distractions!

Pull that cord.

Time to eat breakfast and read a book (for the essay mind you)

Oh, yeah. It's 3:30 pm here. It's time for afternoon snack. @El Peanut butter and crackers.

El's not here, though.