Hair-raising

[fpb]

I read this article, and could not believe my eyes. http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankPastore/2008/10/07/sarah_palin,_matt_damon,_dinosaurs_and_%e2%80%9cdivine_deception%e2%80%9d?page=full&comments=true It is apparently possible in the USA to have postgraduate degrees in both Political Science and Theology and still believe in the fable of a Young Earth (in other words, in creationism in its most idiotic form) and have one's view published in supposedly respectable conservative fora.

That being the case, it becomes easier to understand why all the lies against Sarah Palin have gained so much credibility. They are wrong about her, but the type that generated them really does exist. Unless the conservative environment does something to rid itself of this kind of member, they will go on poisoning their image with the rest of the world. It is no damn good to keep harping on the fact that fifty years ago, Bill Buckley refused the John Birch Society a place in his movement, if this sort of thing is allowed now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may have struck some of my conservative friends that I recently posted rather a lot of critical items. The reason for this is fairly simple. I and people like me cannot find a home in what now passes for the left - a grouping that betrayed its own roots in the working classes, that has forgotten its own values and reason to exist, and that has become a herald of mere antinomianism. We have obviously many more things in common with most of today's conservatives, beginning with the assumption that permanent values exist. But all the same, the longer I for one spend time with conservatives and in conservative environments, the more aware I become of things that I simply cannot accept. You may call this being independent, or being a candid friend. At any rate, if I have come here in order to keep my own view of right and wrong, it must be expected that I will not give it up only in order to stay here.

Comments

Young Earth Creationism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

"It is apparently possible in the USA to have postgraduate degrees in both Political Science and Theology and still believe in the fable of a Young Earth . . ."

It would presumably also surprise you that there are a number of PhD holders in the physical sciences who also believe in a young earth, not only in the US, but in Britain as well. I happen to believe, as they do, that the actual scientific evidence has a better fit with the time frame suggested by a literal reading of the OT history than with the time periods required for the standard evolutionary hypotheses. I do not have the time right now to detail all the arguments, and they are readily available online anyway. You owe it to your own intellectual honesty to check out what is available from the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Association, and other similar organizations. These are not naive rubes, but people highly qualified in scientific thought and research.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No, I do not. This is if possible even worse than rejecting Darwin, since it does not even affront scientific evidence in the name of Darwin's admittedly detestable views, but merely because it gives God a much greater and more intricate creation than the Jews of old imagined. Incidentally, I already reprinted a horrified article against this superstition, by a Catholic scientist who believes in intelligent design but cannot stomach Young Earth nonsense. http://fpb.livejournal.com/160378.html

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

". . . merely because it gives God a much greater and more intricate creation than the Jews of old imagined.

And you know this is the sum of their arguments, how? I was afraid that your reaction would be to dismiss my suggestion, but I still say that intellectual honesty requires investigation before dismissal. Is that not one of your own complaints in other discussions?

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Up to a point. I cannot be pushed into a discussion of the existence of Father Christmas, either. Geology represents the results of three centuries of scientific research (whose bases, as with so many other things, were laid by an Italian of genius, Giovanni Arduino) which from the beginning implied ages well beyond the miserable few thousands of years implicit in the Jewish-Classical constructs that had dominated European learning until then. Scientific conclusions are not a matter of opinion, and to overturn three centuries of study for no reason seems to me prideful nonsense. What is more, as a paleohistorian with an interest in early cultures, I have reasons of my own to regard Young Earth theories as so much vanity.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

To my knowledge, no credentialed, serious scientist argues for the existence of "Father Christmas." The same can not be said for Young Earth Creationism. As for geology, some at least of the pioneers in the study of geology believed in the Noachian flood and placed their studies within that framework. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/Scriptural_geologists.asp#background
and the subsequent articles in that series by Terry Mortensen, MDiv, PhD.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Young Earth Creationism, with its belief that God lied, creating Earth with all fossils already inside, makes any scientific reasoning impossible. You could as well believe that Earth was created yesterday, with all the memories of its history.

This is the total rejection of Reason, which was done by Islam since al Ghazali (1058-1111 AD) and his "Destruction of Philosophers". Today Muslim countries, especially Arab ones, completely lack science.


http://www.ghazali.org/index.html
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hip.htm

"In the “physical” part of the Tahafut, al-Ghazali considers two major questions: the repudiation of the necessity of the causal nexus and the resurrection of the body. The former (Question 17) had been one of the major issues which more than two centuries earlier had set the theologians against the philosophers in general and the Peripatetics in particular. The tendency of the latter to ascribe to “secondary causes” a certain degree of efficacy in the natural order was frowned upon by the theologians on the ground that it militated against the Qur’anic concept of an omnipotent Deity who carried out His grand cosmic designs imperiously and directly and who, in consequence, had no need of any mediator.[87] The occasionalist metaphysics of atoms and accidents, which as we have seen was developed by the theologians of the ninth century, was designed precisely to safeguard God’s absolute independence from any conditions or limitations, natural or other. With the exception of a few Mu‘tazilite theologians who introduced the concept of generation (tawallud) as a theoretical device for retaining the efficacy of natural agents,[88] the Muslim theologians rejected “secondary causation” as incompatible with God’s uniqueness and sovereignty in the world. Al-Ghazali, however, was the first theologian to undertake a systematic refutation of the concept of a necessary causal nexus. In this, he appears to have been influenced by the Greek skeptics of the Pyrrhonian school.

The discussion of causality opens with the statement that the correlation between the so-called cause and effect is not necessary, for only where logical implication is involved can a necessary correlation be admitted. It is plain, however, that between two distinct conditions or events, such as eating and satiety; contact with fire and burning, decapitation and dying, no such correlation can be asserted. The observed correlation between concomitant events in medicine, astronomy, and the arts is due merely to God’s action in joining them constantly. It is logically possible, however, for this conjunction to be infringed and the so-called effects be produced ab initio, without their concomitant causes, as indeed happens in what Muslims universally regard as miracles.[90]

Take the case of fire in relation to cotton. The philosophers claim that fire causes the burning of the cotton, whereas we maintain, says al-Ghazali, that the real agent in this process is God, acting either directly by Himself, or indirectly through an angel. For fire is inanimate, and cannot therefore be said to cause anything whatsoever. The only proof that the philosophers can advance is that we observe burning to occur upon contact with fire, but observation simply proves that the burning follows upon contact with fire, not that it is due to it, or that it is in fact the only possible cause of burning."

The problem with Muslims is that they do not believe that the cause must cause the effect. All effects are miracles, and there is nothing except miracles. The effect usually follows cause, but there is no necessity, since God can do anything. So there is no need to try to attain some aim, but it is best to do what the God orders, and leave the results to Him.

I think that Inquisition was often wrong in practice, but was justified in the principle. There are views that cannot be discussed with, since they reject Reason. They can be only fought with. And Young Earth Creationism is especially pernicious, since it is attacking Christianity from within.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

I am sure that Newton and others of his era would be totally surprised by the modern idea that scientific thinking is impossible for anybody who shares the beliefs they held.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Newton was a singularly nasty human being and, if you did not know, a sworn enemy of orthodox Christianity. But even he would have been horrified at the thought that after three hundred years of research people would use his work to contradict the work of scientists who came after him and built on (the good bits of) his investigations. I find your attitude simply incredible. Not only do you make an idol of the Bible - whereas the Word of God that Christians worship is the man Jesus, who has not left a single word written by His hand - but you even harden the scientists of three hundred years ago into idols, the better to attack the scientists of today. I am reminded of the reported words of Our Lord, Who pointed out that those who build great monumental tombs to the prophets of old are doing nothing else than cooperating ex post facto with those who murdered them in the first place.

My last word

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

1. I do not "make idols" of the scientists of the past. I was merely responding to Baduin's premise that these ideas "make any scientific reasoning impossible." Obviously most of the scientists of what many view as science's heyday did not find this to be true.
2. The "scientists of today" are not monolithic in accepting an old earth. I have repeatedly tried to point out that those holding to a young earth position are not all ignorant rubes, nor do they base their position solely on "what the Bible says." But if you have an a priori viewpoint that this position is anti-intellectual, then there is nothing more to say.

Re: My last word

[baduin.livejournal.com]

Newton was also an alchemician. That is not a problem - the science continually progresses. The problem is not whether the Earth is 6 thousand years old, or 6 billion years old. The problem is whether we can use and trust Reason, or not. Newton used reason, with remarkable results. He was hardly infallible - no man is. Young Earth creationists deny reason and reject reasonable argument because of something written in a book.

It is true, that book is the Bible, but the way they treat it, it should be really called the Holy Quran. That is not the way in which the Christians read the Bible.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

– ibid, 2:9


St. Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

BTW, "God created the earth with the fossils already in place" is a straw man. If you would take the time to investigate the organizations I have referenced you would realize this is not what we believe. Granted, not all who believe in a young earth fully understand the fine distinctions any more than the average lay person understands all the ins and outs of neo-Darwinism vs classical Darwinism vs Punctuated Equilibrium. If you want to attack Young Earth Creationism, find out first what the scientific arguments are of the PhD (some multiple PhD) scientists who hold this position, not the incomplete understanding of laypeople or the caricatures of opponents.

Re: Young Earth Creationism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I object to the Young Earth paradigm as a historian, and that is something I know a lot about. I can tell you, for instance, that the earliest state of recoverable civilization and culture shows plenty of evidence of having tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution behind them. Archaeology joins up with paleontology in postulating the rise of human culture tens of thousands of years before recorded history, and I have plenty of reasons to accept it. At that point, the picture of the past presented by paleontology has no reason not to be perfectly correct for me. For the love of Jesus Christ Who is truth, I beg you on my knees to abandon this nonsense. It is offensive to truth, and thus to God Himself. But if you will not, please do not continue to support it from the pages of my blog, because I have spoken my last word.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"It may have struck some of my conservative friends that I recently posted rather a lot of critical items. ..I ... cannot find a home in what now passes for the left... But all the same, the longer I for one spend time with conservatives ... the more aware I become of things that I simply cannot accept."

This will sound odd indeed coming from me, but take as a statement against self-interest: but I agree with you.

The things that are admirable on the Left, such as concern for the poor, the weak, the widow, the orphan, are admirable precisely because they accord with Christian teaching. Where the Left deviates from Christian teaching, such as in areas of abortion, fornication, intoxication, and so on, not to mention simple honesty, is where they are less admirable. Likewise, the things intolerable on the Right, such as in areas of militarism, patriotism, capitalism and so on, not to mention simple honesty, are intolerable precisely where they cross Christian teaching on turning the other cheek, treating all men, Greek and Jew alike, as children of God, and recalling how hard it is for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle.

I humbly suggest that the right and left are prone to opposite errors, if not opposite sins, and it is precisely that opposition which makes the matter dangerous for the thoughtful Christian. C.S. Lewis once famously observed that the Devil sends sins into the world in flanking pairs, so that, by fleeing one, we fall into the other.

The opposition also tempts us to enmity with our friends, even those with whom we have more in common than we have that parts us.

You know that I do not think the simple right-to-left spectrum represents the real political views of the people I know, including me. That spectrum certainly does not represent the teachings of the holy Church.

Now that world markets are thrown into confusion, perhaps it is time to look again, with wide-awake eyes, at the ancient Christian and Jewish prohibition against lending money at interest. Whatever good or bad can be said about this rule, one can say this for such: a world economy propped up by overinflated fiat money credit could not have come about, had the rulers of our lands heeded the antique prohibition against usury.

[8bitbard.livejournal.com]

I think a large part of it is demographics - creationism is very much "in the water" here; millions of Americans believe in it and most of them are conservative given modern liberalism's attitudes towards religion. So to openly denounce creationism risks pissing off millions of potential supporters. I wish I knew what could be done about it - it seems to be getting worse, rather than better, considering that it's now affecting Catholics. http://ncrcafe.org/node/2122
Depressingly, my own parents seem like they might be falling for it of late, given how they reacted to the buzz around Ben Stein's "Expelled" (which I have not seen, but I don't like what I've read about it). My dad told me that he had been listening to a spot on a radio show about the movie, and yelled "You fucking whore!" at a woman who called in to criticize it. He seemed to think himself a real comedian for doing so. Granted I didn't hear what the woman said - she could have been bashing theism itself - but still. I'm going to have to confront them about this sooner or later, but I'm not looking forward to it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quote Pius XII and John Paul II. Yes, I found it among Catholics, too.

[8bitbard.livejournal.com]

Will do. I know they'd stated in the past that they didn't have a problem with evolution. I think there's a lot of cultural pressure for adherents of traditional religious beliefs to hold evolution in at least some suspicion, regardless of what their religions actually say, and that my parents' change in attitudes is evidence of that.

One aspect of this trend that I find particularly disturbing is the (as far as I can see) growing view that holding pro-life positions makes one creationist by association. Maybe this is a longstanding thing, but I've only really noticed in in the last couple of years.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That sounds like complete nonsense. It certainly is not the case among anti-abortionists in Italy and Britain. If you want the name of a prominent Catholic writer who is also a sworn enemy of what he calls "counterknowledge", Damian Thompson is one. Here are his blogs: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson, about religion, and http://www.counterknowledge.com/, against "counterknowledge" - which I call superstition. I find his ritualism annoying, but there can be no doubt that he is on the right side. Another conservative writer, though I think not Catholic, who is also a sworn opponent of superstition, is Charles Johnson of LIttlegreenfootballs. I mention these names so you do not have to feel quite alone in your position. As for the Papal pronouncements on evolution, the most important is Pope John Paul's 1996 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science. It is available on the Internet in English in various places (the original speeck was given in French), of which this is one: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm. This is a pronouncement of considerable weight: it is not exactly magisterial, not being given in an Encyclical, but it is the next best thing, and it is a very serious matter for a Catholic to reject it. At the very least, they ought to have extremely good reasons; and we should remember that Catholics are not allowed to raise their own reading of the Bible against the Pope or Holy Tradition, which might be expected to know more about it.

[8bitbard.livejournal.com]

I hope I didn't give the impression that it's something I've seen among pro-lifers - I've seen it mostly as a guilt by association tactic among pro-choicers around my own age (twentysomethings). Hopefully I'm overestimating my own experience.

Thanks for the links, I'm about to go to bed but I will read them tomorrow.