The Open Season Thread

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.

Sure, but that doesn't make them theory-free.

I don't think there is any disagreement that Philosophy of science can help advance science, from theory to experiment.

Though I agree with you philosophy of science is important, there's actually quite a bit of disagreement as to its value.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Of course. My seminar paper for my MA in history was about the involvement of Illinois Christian colleges in 19th century antislavery movements. That meant I also had to read the proslavery literature of the times (talk about awkward), and they indeed cited the Bible in their defense. Odder yet, not all antislavery voices were egalitarian. One of the most racist essays I read during my research came from an antislavery professor from Illinois College.

But in the context of theology, tradition has a special use. It is meant to distinguish confessional churches (Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics) from Reformed (Calvinist) churches and extreme sola scriptura views. Though Lutherans use that term, our theology is actually closer to prima scriptura.

And as an ex-Lutheran I still find sola scriptura a rather objectionable stand. I have notice that people that I would tend to classify as the "worst" of Christians tend to be followers of sola scriptura. They quote mine the Bible to support their own often un-Christian activities. I was pointing out that not all Lutheran churches, in fact not even most, seem to support creationism. For me that is as big of an abuse of the Bible as Flat Earth beliefs. If one only reads the Bible literally it is a Flat Earth book since it only describes the Earth as Flat in word and deed. Yet we know that Flat Earth beliefs are false since they are so easily refuted. YEC interpretations are almost no different in degree of being wrong. And OEC are not that far behind.

Reading the Bible literally ends up being the fastest route to atheism for a person that can look at the evidence. There are countless Christians that can accept both science and Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One of the most racist essays I read during my research came from an antislavery professor from Illinois College.

Did the professor advocate freeing the slaves so they could be sent back to Africa?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Reading the Bible literally ends up being the fastest route to atheism for a person that can look at the evidence. There are countless Christians that can accept both science and Christianity.

There's a difference between Bible-and-Evidence and Bible-over-Evidence.

I'm a living example of that.

If what you're implying is true, then why aren't I an atheist?

And before you say it's because I don't look at the evidence, let me remind you of my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Reading the Bible literally ends up being the fastest route to atheism for a person that can look at the evidence. There are countless Christians that can accept both science and Christianity.

And so you read the Bible as a skeptic. Yes? It's not an unheard of thing in Christianity. Think Descartes, the modern advocate of skepticism, who was very devout. With that said, you won't find those conversations in a typical adult Bible study on a Sunday morning (or children's Sunday School, which I get the impression is more your experience). For that you have to engage the theologians at the seminaries. It seems you never got that far, which is sad.

Regardless, my point here would be that I am a Christian who accepts science. It would be special pleading for you to demand skepticism of the Bible and reject my skepticism about one aspect of biology. I've made my living off science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Did the professor advocate freeing the slaves so they could be sent back to Africa?

Let's be careful here. An important factor in African-American history is agency - the position that once freed, the slaves deserved the opportunity to make their own choices. Shipping them back to Africa is just as much a denial of their agency as it was to enslave them. If they chose to go back, fine. To make it a policy is racist, as it entails denying them the rights of citizenship.

But even more than that, the essay (actually a full book) I cited made its case based on "biology". The idea was that Africans had adapted to Africa and whites had adapted to northern climates. Therefore, African-Americans would never thrive in the U.S. (and they meant that not only physically, but intellectually and spiritually as well). As such, the merciful thing was to ship them back.

To make it worse, one of the motivations for African slaves in the first place was the idea that they would be better suited to work the cotton fields and sugar plantations of the deep South and Caribbean than whites. In fact, that idea was imported to South Carolina from the Caribbean. So, cotton planation owners would live in the comfort of Charleston with its sea breezes, sweeping vistas, and iced sweet tea while they left their slaves to die in a sweltering, mosquito infested swamp. That was fine as long as they got their cotton. Plus, they didn't have to feel guilty as they watched all those slaves die.

OK. Rant over.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let's be careful here.

About what?

It was a simple question.

J_B said:
To make it a policy is racist, as it entails denying them the rights of citizenship.

Isn't that what you said?

You said it was "one of the most racist essays you have ever read."

So I'm asking, did the professor advocate freeing the slaves in order to send them back to Africa?

It's just a simple YES or NO question.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So I'm asking, did the professor advocate freeing the slaves in order to send them back to Africa?

It's just a simple YES or NO question.

Yes.

About what?

It was a simple question.

Isn't that what you said?

You said it was "one of the most racist essays you have ever read."

Apologies. Now it's story time. Well, no, I'll try to keep it short.

I'm Caucasian - Scottish descent. I never intended to spend so much of my MA program focused on African-American history. I wasn't opposed to it, but I chose the university I did in part because of the professors there who focused on the history of education and the Reformation. Thing is, it turns out you don't have as much freedom to follow your interests in grad school as I had hoped.

Maybe it shouldn't have been awkward, but it was. Me, the Caucasian dude in classes full of African-Americans and having to make statements about African-American history. It was the very thing I had tried to avoid by focusing on Lutheran history. To make it worse, I had a few uncomfortable conversations with my professors where I was resisting some extreme woke issues. When it came time for my oral defense, I got all tongue-tied. One of my committee professors stopped me and said, "Hey, let's all just admit this is a difficult, awkward topic. Then proceed."

Anyway, maybe I'm too sensitive about it. My apologies. As a result, one of my favorite historians is Thomas Sowell. He's a brave man.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Okay, thanks.

Sorry for being curt.

That was the only way I could figure out how a person could be against slavery, yet write one of the most racist papers one has ever read.

I believe (and I'm sure you do too) that there is only one race: the human race.

And I'm an admirer of Rosa Parks and others, who wouldn't let scientific labels (Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid) cloud her thinking.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Okay, thanks.

Sorry for being curt.

That was the only way I could figure out how a person could be against slavery, yet write one of the most racist papers one has ever read.

I believe (and I'm sure you do too) that there is only one race: the human race.

And I'm an admirer of Rosa Parks and others, who wouldn't let scientific labels (Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid) cloud her thinking.
You blame science for racism?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That was the only way I could figure out how a person could be against slavery, yet write one of the most racist papers one has ever read.

You'd be surprised. Method #2. There was an antislavery protest (I think it was in colonial Georgia, 1700s). The reason: poor Scots-Irish men who had come to the colonies to start over resented the labor competition from the slaves. It made it harder for them to find work at a living wage. And the English did not look kindly on Scots or Irish at that time.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And so you read the Bible as a skeptic. Yes? It's not an unheard of thing in Christianity. Think Descartes, the modern advocate of skepticism, who was very devout. With that said, you won't find those conversations in a typical adult Bible study on a Sunday morning (or children's Sunday School, which I get the impression is more your experience). For that you have to engage the theologians at the seminaries. It seems you never got that far, which is sad.

Regardless, my point here would be that I am a Christian who accepts science. It would be special pleading for you to demand skepticism of the Bible and reject my skepticism about one aspect of biology. I've made my living off science.
Now? Of course. But when I was a believer I simply did not make the error that creationists do. Not taking the obviously false parts of the Bible literally does not make one a skeptic.

But you are misusing the word "skeptic". A skeptic follows the evidence wherever it goes. You are not doing that. One cannot be "skeptical" about the theory of evolution since it is supported endlessly by scientific evidence and there is none to oppose it. One can no more be a skeptic about evolution than one can be a skeptic about gravity. One can only be a science denier. If you accept science then you cannot read Genesis at all literally.

Going back to the Noah's Ark story do you know who first refuted it?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Now? Of course. But when I was a believer I simply did not make the error that creationists do. Not taking the obviously false parts of the Bible literally does not make one a skeptic.

But you are misusing the word "skeptic". A skeptic follows the evidence wherever it goes. You are not doing that. One cannot be "skeptical" about the theory of evolution since it is supported endlessly by scientific evidence and there is none to oppose it. One can no more be a skeptic about evolution than one can be a skeptic about gravity. One can only be a science denier. If you accept science then you cannot read Genesis at all literally.

Mmm. Nicely dogmatic.

Going back to the Noah's Ark story do you know who first refuted it?

Going back to? This is the first mention of it. Anyway, I'm sure it will make you feel better to tell me.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Mmm. Nicely dogmatic.



Going back to? This is the first mention of it. Anyway, I'm sure it will make you feel better to tell me.
No, no no. Not "dogmatic". It is merely the working definition.

Didn't I mention the Noah's Ark story? I could have sworn that I did. It won't make me "feel better". Why use such antagonistic wording? It is almost as if you know that you are wrong but are loathe to admit it.

At any rate it was early Christian geologists that first definitively refuted the story. Though many many Christians doubted it before then.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There's a difference between Bible-and-Evidence and Bible-over-Evidence.

I'm a living example of that.

If what you're implying is true, then why aren't I an atheist?

And before you say it's because I don't look at the evidence, let me remind you of my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Sorry, but your standards are not working standards. You would first have to prove the Bible before your standards could be accepted by a rational person. Irrational standards are pretty much worthless.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You'd be surprised. Method #2. There was an antislavery protest (I think it was in colonial Georgia, 1700s). The reason: poor Scots-Irish men who had come to the colonies to start over resented the labor competition from the slaves. It made it harder for them to find work at a living wage. And the English did not look kindly on Scots or Irish at that time.

I like to sum the Civil War up like this:
  1. The South was pro-slavery.
  2. The North was anti-slavery.
  3. God broke the tie.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like to sum the Civil War up like this:
  1. The South was pro-slavery.
  2. The North was anti-slavery.
  3. God broke the tie.

I'm all for the idea of God's providence in history, but this is a misleading simplification. There were proslavery advocates in the North and antislavery advocates in the South. Further, be aware there is a difference between antislavery, antiracist, and abolitionist. The U.S. was a complicated mix of all these. People do tend to make things complicated.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Dogmatic in the sense of quoting your standard tropes at me without regard to my position.
NO, it is not a "trope". You could have asked for links. I did not think it was necessary for such a basic idea. Many science deniers like to claim that they are skeptics. The two are not the same thing at all.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
NO, it is not a "trope". You could have asked for links. I did not think it was necessary for such a basic idea. Many science deniers like to claim that they are skeptics. The two are not the same thing at all.

'Polemical' might have been a better term.
 
Upvote 0