My Homiletics Challenge

[bhsmte]

You just admitted you weren't, why should they care for truth when you don't?

Even though this thread is a hypothetical, it was a real eye-opener to me.

I think scientific methodists need to see us wrong, when we venture on to their turf.

Only when you are wrong, which you admit doesn't phase you.[/quote]

I guess AV thinks non-believers care what pastors preach in church.

 

[JustMeSee]

Good point ... but if he doesn't keep up with science, science will soon leave him behind.

Scientists need to obsolete their stuff asap, so as to keep the public thinking they're actually doing something.

That's why I think we're seeing a rash of "scientific discoveries" all the time.

So, now scientists are not doing something. That is a mighty big opinion from an internet 'theologian'. Where do you get your information, the holey spirit?

 

[morningstar2651]

These answers seriously surprise me.

They do? Cool.

Let me know if you have any questions about why I answered the way I did.

 

[Strathos]

No way, Jose.

Of the two: I'd rather he be scientifically wrong and theologically right; than scientifically right and theologically wrong.

I just made this thread for those who call Mr. Hovind, Mr. Ham, etc. "liars;" so I can QV them to this thread and tell them I gave them a chance to rectify that problem, but they weren't interested.

Even though this thread is a hypothetical, it was a real eye-opener to me.

I think scientific methodists need to see us wrong, when we venture on to their turf.

If Ham and Hovind had kept their lies and misrepresentations about evolution and science in church, vastly few people would be complaining about them.

In fact, very few people would even know their names, aside from the people who attend that church or know them personally.

It's the fact that they try to go out and undermine scientists and educators that makes them infamous.

 

[theophilus777]

I'd also opt for a general historian, a climate scientist, a philisopher of science, a moral philisopher, a mathemetician, a linguist, an expert in textual criticism, two dwarves and a stripper.

First Church of the freak show? Stay classy

 

[quatona]

In your opinion, should every church have an on-site scientist to verify the sermon first before it is preached, and to make corrections as necessary where applicable?

No, but in my opinion preaching belongs in churches, and not in science forums or classes, where indeed - and rightly so - it will be run through scientific scrutinity.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No, they shouldn't need anything like a scientist. In some (many?) cases, the pastors, preachers, shamans and what-have-you would do well to be much more specific and explanatory about matters concerning the world and especially its creation.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Of the two: I'd rather he be scientifically wrong and theologically right; than scientifically right and theologically wrong.

You are not very successful at either one of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not very successful at either one of them.

And you are, I take it?

 

[sfs]

First Church of the freak show? Stay classy

Yeah, having a philosopher of science is a little kinky.

 

[sfs]

Rather than making up hypothetical situations that reflect our own preconceptions, how about considering a real case? Several scientists (more or less) in my church had a lunch with most of the church staff a year or so ago to talk about science and faith. The scientific points I presented to the assembled pastors (the slides are here), for them to consider in formulating their own theologies and in leading the church were roughly speaking:

1) Humans evolved. We're biologically related to all other species on earth.
2) Signs of human intelligence, including technology and artistic expression, appear gradually in the archeological record.
3) Human thought, memory, emotion and moral judgments reflect, or are at least closely tied, to brain states.
4) We really have learned a lot, including about the deep past, and much of it is really cool. (Actually, I'm not sure exactly what I said for point 4, since it was mostly an excuse to show a picture of a feathered dinosaur, which something worth doing whenever possible.)

So . . . anything wrong with giving them this information?

 

[AV1611VET]

So . . . anything wrong with giving them this information?

I would have shown you the EXIT and asked you to use it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And you are, I take it?

Too Easy. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Split Rock]

I would have shown you the EXIT and asked you to use it.

So much for your brilliant idea then...

 

[Split Rock]

I just made this thread for those who call Mr. Hovind, Mr. Ham, etc. "liars;" so I can QV them to this thread and tell them I gave them a chance to rectify that problem, but they weren't interested.

How so? Hovind and Ham have been corrected many, many times in debates and online and they never changed their tune.

Even though this thread is a hypothetical, it was a real eye-opener to me.

I think scientific methodists need to see us wrong, when we venture on to their turf.

No, but you guys certainly need to see us wrong when we venture onto "origins" turf.

 

[sfs]

I would have shown you the EXIT and asked you to use it.

No doubt explaining why they run the church and you don't.

 

[Split Rock]

No doubt explaining why they run the church and you don't.

Apparently, you would not be qualified to be the "science advisor" for AVET's church. Obviously there are a number of unwritten requirements for the position that AVET forgot to mention.

 

[sfs]

Apparently, you would not be qualified to be the "science advisor" for AVET's church. Obviously there are a number of unwritten requirements for the position that AVET forgot to mention.

Not surprisingly, I wouldn't be welcome in his church, but he'd be welcome in mine. We do have our share of hard-core creationists, who are welcome to believe whatever they like. What's not acceptable are divisiveness and dictating to others on secondary matter.s

 

[morningstar2651]

No, but in my opinion preaching belongs in churches, and not in science forums or classes, where indeed - and rightly so - it will be run through scientific scrutinity.

I'd also like to note that opinions and beliefs can't argue with facts and evidence. For example:

• Person A: I believe that Santa Claus exists. (opinion/belief)
• Person B: I don't believe that Santa Claus exists. (opinion/belief)

Here we have a disagreement of opinion/belief. Person A and Person B both probably have very good reasons for believing as they believe, and they aren't likely to settle their argument any time soon...if ever. Maybe person A could eventually convince person B that Santa exists...but that would have to be done with evidence instead of opinions. A decisive argument isn't made with beliefs or opinions - it's made with facts and evidence.

However, compare the following:

• Person A: I believe that Santa's workshop is located at the North Pole. (opinion/belief)
• Person B: The North Pole has been explored and there are no workshops there. Therefore, Santa's workshop is not located at the North Pole. (fact/evidence)

Here we see a disagreement between an opinion/belief and a fact. The fact wins this disagreement hands-down. This doesn't mean that Santa doesn't exist - it simply means that his workshop (if it does exist) is not located at the North Pole.

Maybe Person A, having discovered this fact, will change their belief.

• Person A: I believe that Santa moved his workshop to Pluto to avoid discovery. (belief/opinion)

As more and more of Person A's beliefs are dis-proven, they become replaced with progressively implausible beliefs designed to be harder to disprove with evidence. Person A becomes less focused on being proven correct and more focused on not being proven wrong. However, this also makes Person A's position both implausible and more difficult for him to prove true.

This is the danger of supporting beliefs with beliefs - you build a house of cards that becomes less and less stable as we learn more about the world. Or, to relate this analogy to the Bible, think of the wise and foolish builder.

The man who supported his beliefs on evidence and facts dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock, while the man who supported his beliefs with beliefs built on the ground with no foundation. When the flood came, the wise builder's house was unshaken, but the foolish builder's house collapsed.

The rock hard foundation are the facts and evidence the support a structured system of beliefs, and the flood is a flood of new information. Unfounded beliefs (beliefs with little or no support) will eventually collapse upon themselves as new information becomes available.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd also like to note that opinions and beliefs can't argue with facts and evidence. For example:

• Person A: I believe that Santa Claus exists. (opinion/belief)
• Person B: I don't believe that Santa Claus exists. (opinion/belief)

Here we have a disagreement of opinion/belief. Person A and Person B both probably have very good reasons for believing as they believe, and they aren't likely to settle their argument any time soon...if ever. Maybe person A could eventually convince person B that Santa exists...but that would have to be done with evidence instead of opinions. A decisive argument isn't made with beliefs or opinions - it's made with facts and evidence.


However, compare the following:

• Person A: I believe that Santa's workshop is located at the North Pole. (opinion/belief)
• Person B: The North Pole has been explored and there are no workshops there. Therefore, Santa's workshop is not located at the North Pole. (fact/evidence)

Here we see a disagreement between an opinion/belief and a fact. The fact wins this disagreement hands-down. This doesn't mean that Santa doesn't exist - it simply means that his workshop (if it does exist) is not located at the North Pole.


Maybe Person A, having discovered this fact, will change their belief.

• Person A: I believe that Santa moved his workshop to Pluto to avoid discovery. (belief/opinion)

As more and more of Person A's beliefs are dis-proven, they become replaced with progressively implausible beliefs designed to be harder to disprove with evidence. Person A becomes less focused on being proven correct and more focused on not being proven wrong. However, this also makes Person A's position both implausible and more difficult for him to prove true.

This is the danger of supporting beliefs with beliefs - you build a house of cards that becomes less and less stable as we learn more about the world. Or, to relate this analogy to the Bible, think of the wise and foolish builder.

The man who supports his beliefs on evidence and facts digs down deep and lays his foundation on the rock, while the man who supports his beliefs with beliefs builds on the ground with no foundation. When the flood came, the wise builder's house was unshaken, but the foolish builder's house collapses.

The rock hard foundation are the facts and evidence the support a structured system of beliefs, and the flood is a flood of new information. Unfounded beliefs (beliefs with little or no support) will eventually collapse upon themselves as new information becomes available.

Otherwise known as partaking in; psychological gymnastics, to protect a belief at all costs.