Silmarien
Existentialist
- Feb 24, 2017
- 4,337
- 5,254
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I guess my analogy had a confusing flaw. The person whose honesty is in question is not a MEMBER of the grand jury - the grand jury is a PHASE in that person's process for dealing with new information. Each person first must decide whether new information is interesting and credible enough to deserve a more thorough evaluation. If the grand jury inside our psyche decides the information is interesting then it goes to the trial phase. The person begins to dig further and attempt to reach a verdict.
For example if somebody begins talking to me about the latest "Ancient Aliens" episode then my eyes glaze over and I begin thinking about things to buy at the grocery store while I politely nod my head. The grand jury inside my brain decides that "Ancient Aliens" is too silly to deserve my attention.
(1) Some Christians might react to evolution in the same way I react to "Ancient Aliens" - they think it is too silly to deserve their attention.
(2) Some Christians might learn about evolution but their faith in a literal understanding of Genesis is too strong to be overturned by evolution. These Christians might find a fringe scientist who disagrees with evolution and then dismiss evolution.
(3) FINALLY there are Christians who don't think evolution sounds silly. In fact these Christians think evolution sounds plausible, but they are afraid to accept what their internal grand jury has decided. Those Christians are dishonest. They won't let the case go to trial, because they fear that evolution might win. ... If they fear that evolution might win, then they are already partial believers in evolution. These Christians cannot honestly say that they disbelieve evolution.
(Sorry if the above is not clear. It seems a bit rambling, but I am getting too tired to clean it up.)
I still wouldn't call the third group dishonest, if they're open about the fact that they think evolution might be true and are unwilling to deal with what that might mean. They care more about Creationism than the truth, and are presumably honest about it. The second group that relies upon a fringe scientist to assuage their fears strikes me as much more dishonest than the group that admits up front that they reject evolution as an article of faith.
I don't think the third position is a very stable position, though. If you've got faith and reason pointing in opposite directions, I think the former is in danger of really snapping eventually.
Upvote
0