Bill Dembski disillusioned with fundamentalism

[oxmixmudd]

I think so too.

This notion of "true Christian" seems to apply to the individual and the group he/she belongs to. And any Christian outsider is a "Christian falsely called".

Yet all you need to do is Google something like "the heresy of X" - where "X" can be "calvinism", "pentecostalism", "lutheranism", "Protestantism", "Catholicism" and you easily see how everyone is each others heretic.

It was that kind of thinking which brought my faith undone all those decades ago - meeting folk whom I had been taught were on their way to hell as heretics, only to find that they thought the same thing about me.

Fundamentalism seems to be very blind that way.

On a lighter note, I saw this earlier, out on Facebook:-


Fundamentalist:
This generation is scornful, so they are very ignorant. Effeminate teachers cater to silly women, who prefer Bible studies over wifely submission and holy mothering (II Tim 3:1-7; I Cor 14:34-35). The average so-called Christian today has rejected soun...See More

Spiffy response:
Who put the bird droppings in your coffee this morning?

It is that element of 'the other guy is necessarily evil because he doesn't think like me' that is very difficult to deal with, isn't it? And yet at some point on the continuum there is a point where that is no longer simply a difference of opinion but a reality. And example: blue is clearly not green (lets assume we are not blue/green color blind for a moment), but on a big chart that has all the fine gradations between blue and green, everybody ends up with a different opinion of exactly where blue turns into green - even though we can agree the one end is blue, and the other end is green.

Fundamentalism is picking one of those points in the transition space, saying one side is blue and the other is green, and then violently silencing anyone that might see it differently.

The other end of that is saying that since we can't pick a clear point in the middle and call one side blue and the other side green, then there really isn't a difference between blue and green after all



Jim

[Carrikature]

It is that element of 'the other guy is necessarily evil because he doesn't think like me' that is very difficult to deal with, isn't it? And yet at some point on the continuum there is a point where that is no longer simply a difference of opinion but a reality. And example: blue is clearly not green (lets assume we are not blue/green color blind for a moment), but on a big chart that has all the fine gradations between blue and green, everybody ends up with a different opinion of exactly where blue turns into green - even though we can agree the one end is blue, and the other end is green.

Fundamentalism is picking one of those points in the transition space, saying one side is blue and the other is green, and then violently silencing anyone that might see it differently.

The other end of that is saying that since we can't pick a clear point in the middle and call one side blue and the other side green, then there really isn't a difference between blue and green after all


Jim

I agree. But, running with this analogy, in practice we rarely (if ever) need to identify blue and green. Insisting on a point in the transition space creates an issue where none need exist.

[rwatts]

It is that element of 'the other guy is necessarily evil because he doesn't think like me' that is very difficult to deal with, isn't it? And yet at some point on the continuum there is a point where that is no longer simply a difference of opinion but a reality. And example: blue is clearly not green (lets assume we are not blue/green color blind for a moment), but on a big chart that has all the fine gradations between blue and green, everybody ends up with a different opinion of exactly where blue turns into green - even though we can agree the one end is blue, and the other end is green.

Fundamentalism is picking one of those points in the transition space, saying one side is blue and the other is green, and then violently silencing anyone that might see it differently.

The other end of that is saying that since we can't pick a clear point in the middle and call one side blue and the other side green, then there really isn't a difference between blue and green after all



Jim

This picture is telling:-

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictu...4742/Evolution

It's important to know where one stands and from there be prepared to recognise the grey areas, the transitions, and furthermore be prepared to discuss and argue about those grey areas.

And fundamentalism does apply to both ends of the spectrum - the theism and atheism sides. I think that's one point legitimately raised against the 4 leaders of new atheism, in that while they are intolerant of intolerant theism, they see all theism as being intolerant. Which is silly.

Now while I see religious fundamentalism as bonkers, I've met many religious fundamentalists on Facebook who are very much caring, decent folk who, for all their odd-beliefs, don't exactly come across as intolerant. I'd probably trust them in many ways, more than I would some of the more tolerant, more enlightened folk I know.

It's not simple.

I see this as very much an issue of trying to remove the bad and encourage the good, even within religious fundamentalism itself.

But then, there are those rip-roaring fundies Dembski talks about. Too many of them, I think. But they can be fun.

[Jorge]

Bill Dembski just posted a very interesting blog entry on his webpage. There are some very insightful comments on fundamentalism and candid comments about his views. Here are some excerpts:

These comments are insightful, but nothing new to those here on TWeb. What I found most interesting were his views on the Flood. Dembski now seems to take a view similar to Paul Seely:

Just a comment or two ...

I admire and respect Bill Dembski a great deal. His raw intelligence and education are extraordinary. Anyone here that doubts Dembski on those criteria is simply ignorant of the facts.

That said, he is on two of my lists: Most Admired and Most Disappointed At.

In all fairness, for the same reason as I do not fault many people in general, I do not fault Bill Dembski (well, I do not fault them totally). I am referring to the fact that most people acquired their positions due to decades of relentless indoctrination into a Materialistic way of thinking and/or into a way of thinking wherein compromising the obvious interpretation of Scripture is considered acceptable or even required because of "modern discoveries and advancements in various fields".

Even the brightest, highest-educated individuals fall prey to that 24/7 In-Your-Face indoctrination.

Therefore, when I read what KB posts here, it is not surprising to me in the least.

To provide an example, I remember reading Dembski's The End of Christianity. In that book Dembski seriously proposes the notion of 'retroactive sin'.

Concisely: A very serious obstacle to those wanting to integrate giga-years with their "Christianity" is the theological problem of sin and the consequences of sin, namely, suffering, disease and death.

Bill - just as many others - knows that this is a serious obstacle. Clever as he is, he concocted the notion that God knew that man was going to sin and so the consequences of that sin (that God knew was forthcoming) began taking effect from the beginning of the creation. That is why there was disease, suffering and death from day one - so proposes Bill Dembski.

I saw Bill's proposal as an 'academic' answer - sort of like answering an unannounced quiz with a clever idea. The fact of the matter is that when the ENTIRE Bible is considered, "retroactive sin" is not only a preposterous notion that cherry-picks from God's character, it is actually blasphemous in a way.

In short, destroy the foundations and the rest of the structure tumbles. So it comes as no surprise to me that Bill would say such things about Fundamentalists. Which is too bad. But I still hope that he will come around one day.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'd add to this that fundamentalism allows no room for personal/spiritual growth.
You have to get all the answers correct right out of the gate (whether you understand them or not is immaterial).

.......... Ridiculous, preposterous, ignorant and stupid post!!!

Jorge

[Jedidiah]

Just a comment or two ...

I admire and respect Bill Dembski a great deal. His raw intelligence and education are extraordinary. Anyone here that doubts Dembski on those criteria is simply ignorant of the facts.

That said, he is on two of my lists: Most Admired and Most Disappointed At.

In all fairness, for the same reason as I do not fault many people in general, I do not fault Bill Dembski (well, I do not fault them totally). I am referring to the fact that most people acquired their positions due to decades of relentless indoctrination into a Materialistic way of thinking and/or into a way of thinking wherein compromising the obvious interpretation of Scripture is considered acceptable or even required because of "modern discoveries and advancements in various fields".

Even the brightest, highest-educated individuals fall prey to that 24/7 In-Your-Face indoctrination.

Therefore, when I read what KB posts here, it is not surprising to me in the least.

To provide an example, I remember reading Dembski's The End of Christianity. In that book Dembski seriously proposes the notion of 'retroactive sin'.

Concisely: A very serious obstacle to those wanting to integrate giga-years with their "Christianity" is the theological problem of sin and the consequences of sin, namely, suffering, disease and death.

Bill - just as many others - knows that this is a serious obstacle. Clever as he is, he concocted the notion that God knew that man was going to sin and so the consequences of that sin (that God knew was forthcoming) began taking effect from the beginning of the creation. That is why there was disease, suffering and death from day one - so proposes Bill Dembski.

I saw Bill's proposal as an 'academic' answer - sort of like answering an unannounced quiz with a clever idea. The fact of the matter is that when the ENTIRE Bible is considered, "retroactive sin" is not only a preposterous notion that cherry-picks from God's character, it is actually blasphemous in a way.

In short, destroy the foundations and the rest of the structure tumbles. So it comes as no surprise to me that Bill would say such things about Fundamentalists. Which is too bad. But I still hope that he will come around one day.

Jorge

So, Jorge, do you deny that God knew all that would happen? If so you deny His Omniscience.

[Jorge]

So, Jorge, do you deny that God knew all that would happen? If so you deny His Omniscience.

OF COURSE I do not deny God's omniscience. Even you should know me well enough to not have asked that dumb question.

That was why I wrote, "... when the ENTIRE Bible is considered ...".

God's Word is clear on the events and their chronology - no "retroactive effects" are required. What Bill did is exactly what all those that distort the Bible do, namely, inject notions not found anywhere in the Bible so that they are able to introduce or retain other non-biblical views (such as giga-years).

Bluntly, it's analogous to the liar that tells a lie. He later has to tell other lies to cover up his first lie and then other lies to cover up that lie and so on. This is why TEs have to continually come up with hair-raising, non-biblical concoctions - so that they can retain Evolution and giga-years at the expense of the plain meaning in Scripture.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

... What Bill did is exactly what all those that distort the Bible do, namely, inject notions not found anywhere in the Bible

do you mean notions like vapor canopies, flood geology, accelerated nuclear decay, an anisotropic speed of light, or an original creation without the second law of thermodynamics?

so that they are able to introduce or retain other non-biblical views (such as giga-years).

or such as no death of animals before the fall of man, no rain before the flood, or the creation of the entire universe in 4004 BC?

Bluntly, it's analogous to the liar that tells a lie. He later has to tell other lies to cover up his first lie and then other lies to cover up that lie and so on. This is why TEs have to continually come up with hair-raising, non-biblical concoctions - so that they can retain Evolution and giga-years at the expense of the plain meaning in Scripture.

And this is why YECs have to continually come up with hair-raising, non-biblical concoctions - so that they can retain their own rigid biblical interpretation at the expense of the intended message of Scripture.

[Jedidiah]

OF COURSE I do not deny God's omniscience.

So you agree that God knew that Adam and Eve would sin.

God's Word is clear on the events and their chronology - no "retroactive effects" are required.

Jorge

I agree that no "retroactive effects" are required. I never said I agreed with that idea. I just wanted to establish that you recognized the fact that God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and that is somehow a part of what He is doing.

[Jorge]

do you mean notions like vapor canopies, flood geology, accelerated nuclear decay, an anisotropic speed of light, or an original creation without the second law of thermodynamics?

Be warned, Rogue06: you have a challenger for the title of King of Straw Men.

You (should) know that notions such as you list above are meant to reconcile observations that appear to conflict with The Word of God. The BIBLE is taken as Truth; the observations are regarded as "suspect" (incomplete, inaccurate ... "we see as through a dark glass").

Compare that with the Established Materialistic Paradigm in which Evolution / giga-years are taken as 'Truth' and it is the Bible that is regarded as "suspect" requiring re-interpretations, alterations and introducing ad hoc concoctions to make it fit with accepted "truth" (of Evolution and giga-years).

Are you able grasp what I'm saying? Spelling it out further:
Who/What is your Authority and Who/What is the subordinate?
Who/What do you rush to alter when there is conflict (real or imaginary)?

or such as no death of animals before the fall of man, no rain before the flood, or the creation of the entire universe in 4004 BC?

DITTO.

And this is why YECs have to continually come up with hair-raising, non-biblical concoctions - so that they can retain their own rigid biblical interpretation at the expense of the intended message of Scripture.

You sound just like R06 (are you sure you're not actually R06 impersonating KB?).

Oops, my bad ... R06 would have used his favorite asinine expression "woodenly literal" so I guess you're not him.

Since you're really KB then it's one of your most disappointing posts ever. I expected more.

A quick response (all that it deserves) to your nonsense is that the plain, sound reading of the relevant Scripture is clear enough for an eight-year-old to understand. It seems that one has to become "educated" in the Materialistic "educational" system to learn how NOT to grasp the plain, sound meaning from written words.

Jorge

[Jorge]

So you agree that God knew that Adam and Eve would sin.

Of course! Were you also aware that The Lamb's Book of Life existed before the foundation of the earth? That too is due to God's omniscience.

I agree that no "retroactive effects" are required. I never said I agreed with that idea. I just wanted to establish that you recognized the fact that God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and that is somehow a part of what He is doing.

Yup - agree 100%! Thus, what Bill Dembski was trying to do was to reconcile the pain, suffering and death --- which had to occur for eons --- with the plain, sound Words found throughout Scripture on this subject coupled with God's character. There is NO WAY to successfully achieve that reconciliation. But if a person wants to retain giga-years then they MUST come up with something (as Bill did).

I have held for decades that the matter of giga-years and sound Bible-based Christianity is primarily theological , not analytical. I believe that Dembski knows this also and this is why he sought a "way out". His "retroactive sin" is an analytic answer but falls flat in its theology.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Of course! Were you also aware that The Lamb's Book of Life existed before the foundation of the earth? That too is due to God's omniscience.




Yup - agree 100%! Thus, what Bill Dembski was trying to do was to reconcile the pain, suffering and death --- which had to occur for eons --- with the plain, sound Words found throughout Scripture on this subject coupled with God's character. There is NO WAY to successfully achieve that reconciliation. But if a person wants to retain giga-years then they MUST come up with something (as Bill did).

I have held for decades that the matter of giga-years and sound Bible-based Christianity is primarily theological , not analytical. I believe that Dembski knows this also and this is why he sought a "way out". His "retroactive sin" is an analytic answer but falls flat in its theology.

Jorge

One of these days you are going to quit trying to blame everyone else for what is a simple response to the facts. What you do here, over and over again, is the rough equivalent of blaming someone for breaking a leg after falling 15 feet. It's just so idiotic. The issue of the age of the Earth is not a matter of will. It is a matter of what the evidence points to. And the extant evidence points to a minimum age for the Earth of 4+ billion years. And there are very few geological features on this Earth that are less than 10,000 years old.

But I understand. For you to give even one post that honestly addresses this simple reality would be to undo your entire world view. But the truth is, the only person in these discussions that maintains a position on the age of the Earth that is a product of the will - as opposed to a simple acknowledgement of what the evidence implies - is you Jorge.

So stop projecting your approach to the problem onto others.


Jim

[Carrikature]

One of these days you are going to quit trying to blame everyone else for what is a simple response to the facts.

No he won't.

[TheLurch]

You (should) know that notions such as you list above are meant to reconcile observations that appear to conflict with The Word of God. The BIBLE is taken as Truth; the observations are regarded as "suspect" (incomplete, inaccurate ... "we see as through a dark glass").

So, that definition of the scientific method most of us learned in school? Throw it out! Here's the real one:

1) interpret the Bible.
2) identify a series of "facts" described by this interpretation.
3) distort reality as much as necessary so that these "facts" kindof, sortof make some kind of sense.
4) if you can't manage 3, don't worry! Violate known physics if you need to.

And so science, which is one of the few truly global cultures humanity has developed (that and football/soccer), becomes a distinctly Christian activity, one where anyone with other beliefs is forced to check them at the door and recognize the primacy of a religious text they don't believe in.

The 14th century is calling. It wants its scientific method back.

[Kbertsche]

You (should) know that notions such as you list above are meant to reconcile observations that appear to conflict with The Word of God.

Good wording; these crazy unscientific notions are indeed "meant to reconcile observations that appear to conflict with The Word of God". It is an apparent conflict.

The BIBLE is taken as Truth; the observations are regarded as "suspect" (incomplete, inaccurate ... "we see as through a dark glass").

I agree; but this includes our observations and interpretations of Scripture as well as those of nature. We view Scripture "as through a dark glass".

Are you able grasp what I'm saying? Spelling it out further:
Who/What is your Authority and Who/What is the subordinate?
Who/What do you rush to alter when there is conflict (real or imaginary)?

My authority is God. He is the author of both nature and Scripture. In terms of truth, neither is subordinate to the other, any more than 1 Peter is subordinate to 1 John, or Genesis to Psalms.

When I find an apparent conflict between Genesis and Psalms, I do not alter either text. Rather, I alter my interpretation of one or the other. In the same way, when I find an apparent conflict between nature and Scripture, I alter my interpretation of one or the other.