Issues with slippery slope argument

[Daughter of Ararat]

Why I oppose the slippery slope argument against non-literal seven day creationism:

This is not meant to argue for or against literal seven-day creationism. It is merely meant to say that the slippery slope argument needs to be kept not in fear of a dispute between scripture and science (as the truth and observable truth do not have to conflict), but should be expressed with recognition of the various ways that God is revealed in this universe and a willingness to match science with science or consider the facts around it. I was listening to an argument on the radio about creationism the other day also was also seeking to be able to put into words why this is something I feel strongly about.

The fact that we believe the Bible comes down to personal experience, reasons outside of the Bible, or a circular reasoning that it is true because the Bible says it is true. (While after establishing the validity of the Scripture, a scripture says so reason is thus affirmed, beforehand, this is insufficient to stand on its own.) Feelings can lie, so a reason that it feels right doesn’t entirely stand on its own. An external validation does hold water, because God demonstrates His promises at times in our lives and with scientific/archeological evidence of what has happened. Even out cannon of scripture was decided by people (though after a lot of prayer and analysis). Thus the Bible that we have today is not established simply by the Bible but also by outside sources that also validate its authority.

I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible reflects the absolute truth of the universe as a very pure, by virtue of being God’s word, revelation of this absolute truth in which we exist. I also believe that we can observe aspects of truth in God’s creation and that our minds were given to use for a reason beyond memorization and basic survival practices. Archeology has confirmed aspects of history from the Bible and science has helped prove a major flood with anthropologically verifiable stories across the world of a great flood. Luke was a doctor and this took scientific study to practice. Science was not condemned in scripture. The heaven’s declare the glory of the Lord and even the rocks would cry out if we did not worship God. The same science that suggests that the world might not have been created in 24 hours periods also indicates that there was only one Eve originally.

To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. It also denies things that prove scripture right, and seems to suggest a circular reasoning that seems almost fearful of any observation that truth may not fit with one’s own preconceptions. The dispute this better would be to offer scientific and social science/humanities evidence for a literal seven-day, 24-hour creation. Otherwise, this offers its own slippery slope that we deny basic observations about God and risks blinding us to new understandings about God and how He interacts in the world.

Further, it offends me because I have seriously considered walking away from God and found my reason to stay. The Gospel is the high point of God’s self-revelation to us, a savior referred to in history, predicted and fulfilled in scripture, and evidently needed when considering the state of mankind and my own heart. There is so much that I would have to deny before making such a painful choice of leaving the only thing I know to give any hope for my soul and make my life anything but arbitrary or hopeless that to suggest such a thing is to impose a deeply painful idea into my mind by virtue of something rarely spoken of beyond the first couple chapters of Genesis and that to me also holds little/no consequence to the Gospel as my own understanding of creation still goes back to God and his perfect plan for us. I think this is what most makes this an emotional subject for me. I cannot so easily walk away from the only savior I have ever known and such would truly be as a knife to my heart. To say otherwise shows you do not know me or it denies who I am.

 

[Greg1234]

Christians aren't anti science or anti evidence. They simply consider the bible to be evidence. When you read an essay on history or on an historical event, you may see below references to letters, reports, articles, etc which were all written in the past. Most of these have no direct evidence for them, meaning that Lincoln signing a paper on a specific date or people throwing tea over the side of a boat is not recovered from CCTV cameras, but from the texts.

Darwinists have the same problem with God being in ancient documents as they have with humans being in ancient strata. It's not supposed to be there. The request for evidence and the claim that Christians function without evidence is a cheeky little way of saying that the bible is not evidence. They walk into an historical archive and their behavior might be deemed a form of ineptitude.

You are correct in saying that there is more evidence via personal experiences and there can be more evidence acquired through physical means. But to deem physical science as an authority only means that they dictate the bible. Hence they say bring us the evidence and we will decide as opposed to us saying bring us the evidence and we will decide. Their heads grow larger.

There are many views on biblical exegesis but they are resolved through theological means- through study and otherwise then comes the physical. I could not be concerned with what they deem as right and wrong. Today there was no global flood and tomorrow the earth is in the backyard pool of the teenage mutant ninja turtles (theoretically of course). Any decision on the flood issue comes from theological study. When you look at the big picture you will see that man is heading away from materialism when according to them, we should be moving in the opposite direction. You will see that Intelligent Design is strengthening at a great pace. But it starts with theology.

 

[Daughter of Ararat]

You are correct in saying that there is more evidence via personal experiences and there can be more evidence acquired through physical means. But to deem physical science as an authority only means that they dictate the bible. Hence they say bring us the evidence and we will decide as opposed to us saying bring us the evidence and we will decide. Their heads grow larger.

I've been told that because my understanding of scripture differs from some, I hold a lesser view of God, don't respect God, etc. even though I honestly respect Scripture as best I understand it. I want more than just a verse that I, after searching scripture, still interpret differently than others, as evidence that I am wrong. If after studying, I see multiple ways of interpreting things or a different way of interpreting a part of scripture, I require evidence beyond hearsay of some no more authoritative than those Christian scholars and theological experts who agree with me. I don't see this as a sign that I am going to disregard scripture.

You will see that Intelligent Design is strengthening at a great pace. But it starts with theology.

I am a big fan of intelligent design. I am also a big fan of the cosmological argument-the only simple and logical answer to the infinity of the universe in time and space that such a God should exist outside of time and create something as opposed to an infinite stream in infinities or improbabilities.

 

[Greg1234]

I've been told that because my understanding of scripture differs from some, I hold a lesser view of God, don't respect God, etc. even though I honestly respect Scripture as best I understand it. I want more than just a verse that I, after searching scripture, still interpret differently than others, as evidence that I am wrong. If after studying, I see multiple ways of interpreting things or a different way of interpreting a part of scripture, I require evidence beyond hearsay of some no more authoritative than those Christian scholars and theological experts who agree with me. I don't see this as a sign that I am going to disregard scripture.

It may not be disregarding scripture, but some are so untenable that they go against scripture on every level. At this point the only recourse is in the physical science's theories and hypotheses about what may be going on. The facts are taken, analyzed and shown not only to be in line with current doctrine but also with the developing stream of data.

I am a big fan of intelligent design. I am also a big fan of the cosmological argument-the only simple and logical answer to the infinity of the universe in time and space that such a God should exist outside of time and create something as opposed to an infinite stream in infinities or improbabilities.

I also find that intelligent design is more than adequate. The debate should have been over at the discovery of the DNA code. But you know Darwinists and argumentation.

 

[Daughter of Ararat]

It may not be disregarding scripture, but some are so untenable that they go against scripture on every level. At this point the only recourse is in the physical science's theories and hypotheses about what may be going on. The facts are taken, analyzed and shown not only to be in line with current doctrine but also with the developing stream of data.

I'm a partially evolutionary creationist and old earth creationist with insufficient motivation to change. Bottom line though, nothing in this world was created without the work of God.

I also find that intelligent design is more than adequate. The debate should have been over at the discovery of the DNA code. But you know Darwinists and argumentation.

What do you mean? How does the discovery of DNA code relate?

 

[Freedom63]

Christians aren't anti science or anti evidence. They simply consider the bible to be evidence.

Cannot agree with this generalization. It might be true that most Christians consider the bible to be philosophical evidence. But those who consider it to represent some kind of scientific evidence are definitely in the minority.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm a partially evolutionary creationist and old earth creationist with insufficient motivation to change.

well of course

Bottom line though, nothing in this world was created without the work of God.

Nobody opposes that. In my opinion, when you decide to put physical science's theories over the bible you're going to run into problems. Because when these theories dictate what the bible says, then you're going to have to wait for physical science to speak about God before you acknowledge that the bible is speaking about God. Many Christians have done just that and they've never returned. It is in my opinion that you weigh the facts, that obtained from personal experience and otherwise, with textual analysis, not first with physical sciences theoretical promulgations. Or you'll run into trouble.

What do you mean? How does the discovery of DNA code relate?

Don't worry about it

 

[Greg1234]

Cannot agree with this generalization. It might be true that most Christians consider the bible to be philosophical evidence. But those who consider it to represent some kind of scientific evidence are definitely in the minority.

By drawing a line between philosophy and science I'm guessing youre trying to draw a distinction between what is real and what is not. If by scientific you mean real as in existing then it is scientific, though not a text on methodological naturalism. If by science you mean experienced by the individual then it is scientific though not materialistic. If by scientific you mean with the integrity to stand as evidence as a historical reference to God in ancient times then it is scientific. If by philosophy you mean an abstract concept then it is also that. I do "admire" you Christian Darwinists' attempt at undermining biblical authority by relegating texts to govern the dust particles on your shelves but that's a convenience that will remain distant. The scientific method was derived from philosophy btw.

 

[Papias]

Daughter of Ararat -

Beautiful opening post! Yes, all truth is God's truth - both the truth of scripture as well as the truth God is revealing through science.

I agree, the slippery slope argument is a common fallacy. That's like arguing that once we allow cars to drive faster than 5 mph, then in no time everyone will be allowed to drive 100 mph.

Many theologians and clergy have spoken up for your ability to hold both sources of truth as important and valuable. While young earth creationism is common among Christians in general, it is less common among theologians who know the Bible better.

Papias

 

[Verticordious]

What do you mean? How does the discovery of DNA code relate?

I could go on for hours, but in short DNA is a language, and language is arbitrary. A language is created when a conscious intelligence chooses a convention of symbols, as opposed to the laws of physics. You can't perform some kind of mathematical equation, or produce some chemical reaction that explains why the symbols 's','u', and 'n' placed next to each other in that order symbolically represent that big ball of burning hydrogen in the daytime sky. The reason 'sun' means what it does it because someone make a decision that it would and others who spoke the same language agreed.

If I were to create my own language and ask you to try to read it without giving you any clues, it would be literally impossible for you to know what it said aside from guessing. Even if you had a perfect understanding of how the entire universe functions, it would still be impossible for you to understand my because what the language means is decided by me, not physics. The only way for you to know what it meant is if I told you.

So you are literally left with nothing but blind random chance because the laws of physics have no ability to create DNA on purpose, only by accident. Even if you had a trillion universes completing a trillion random attempts at DNA every second, you would only get 3.84x10^34 combinations out of ~10^700,000 possible combinations. That’s for the smallest known organism, which has ~580,000 base pairs, and it’s also a parasite, meaning it requires another organism to live. That’s a probability of ~10^-699,966%. That’s .000...001 with 699,965 zeros, Also, in reality, there is no such mechanism that creates trillions and trillions of attempts at a viable DNA sequence every second, so even a probability of ~10^-699,966% is being very generous.

For reference, your chances of winning a multi-state lottery is 1 in 10^8, the chance of being struck by lightning 10 times in your life is 1 in 10^33, and the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be ~10^80, so why would you waste your soul on something that, in an absolute completely exaggerated best case scenario, has a 1 in 10^699,966 chance of happening? Anyone who knows statistics knows that the lottery is a waste of your money, and anyone who knows statistics knows that disbelief in God is a waste of your soul. If there’s anything we can be certain of in life, it’s that life was designed by a creator.