Forge Post -- Camping Out

[Cow Poke]

We also have Deep-Fryers, Mr Phoenix... and I gots me a hankerin' for FRIED CHICKEN!

My belt is a fence around a chicken graveyard.

[Soundsurfr]

Now of course, some parts of the Bible are indeed simple enough that that is all we need to do – if all we need is basic knowledge about what it means. But even the simplest passages can have deeper and richer backgrounds that a straightforward reading can miss – and that can lead to a deeply erroneous conclusion.

How convenient it must be to operate in an environment where one can point to conclusions and then simply declare that they are, or are not erroneous. The only mistake that Camping made was to break the golden rule of theological pontification, and that is...don't EVER issue a pronouncement that can be objectively proven false. File that away, future apologists. It's the cardinal tenet of your profession.

I won’t reproduce the whole E-Block article on perspicuity here, but a few major points deserve notice. First, the historic idea of the perspicuity of Scripture was made against claims that the meaning of the text was inaccessible to readers by any other means than revelational authority – claims made by groups like the Gnostics who claimed they had some “secret” way to interpret Scripture. It was not intended to be used against serious study and exegesis, nor could it be: The means whereby scholars and students seek to better understand the Bible are not restricted to those are granted revelation. Anyone may go to a library, or go to Waldenbooks, and find the same resources I or anyone else has.

And come up with completely contradictory interpretations and conclusions, as so many have.

The point for today being: Self-studied “experts” like Camping are a bane to the church today; they don’t even need to be teaching cultic doctrines to be a danger.

Irony Meter.jpg

[ApologiaPhoenix]

How convenient it must be to operate in an environment where one can point to conclusions and then simply declare that they are, or are not erroneous.

Kind of like how is done in the writings of the new atheists huh? If you're a scientist, you can speak on any matter of religion and simply say it's wrong.

The only mistake that Camping made was to break the golden rule of theological pontification, and that is...don't EVER issue a pronouncement that can be objectively proven false.

This argument brought to you by the maker of the SUPERSONIC BEARS!

Um. No. His mistake was treating the Bible like a secret code book and violating a teaching of Christ in saying that no one knows the day nor hour. However, let's keep in mind some people who broke golden rules, such as the Aristotleans who declared Galileo was wrong long before the church did. Let's keep in mind the people who said the Hittites never existed. Let's keep in mind all the ideas in liberal thought disproven by the John Rylands papyri. In modern times, let's not forget someone like P.Z. Myers who asserted without evidence that Jared Loughner was a right-winger who listened to talk radio.

[QUOTE] File that away, future apologists. It's the cardinal tenet of your profession. /QUOTE]

This argument brought to you by the maker of the SUPERSONIC BEARS!

No. Ours is actually found on studying arguments and putting forward cases. This might sound like a shock to you, but some things are not scientific!

And come up with completely contradictory interpretations and conclusions, as so many have.

This argument brought to you by the maker of the SUPERSONIC BEARS!

Yes. Some have, just as there have been in EVERY other field. Are you saying there is unanimity in geology, evolutionary biology, psychology, etc.

Irony Meter.jpg

This argument brought to you by the maker of the SUPERSONIC BEARS!

Little difference. JPH can actually accept correction. I know because I've told him he's wrong on some points and when I've shown it he's accepted it just fine. Camping can't under any circumstances.

Tune in next time for our reply from the maker of the SUPERSONIC BEARS!

[Sparko]

Welcome back SS... I see little has changed.

charmin_roll_bear.jpg

[jpholding]

BURP....How convenient it must be to operate in an environment where one can point to BURRRP conclusions and then simply declare that they are, or are not erroneous BURRRRP. The only mistake that Camping made was to break the golden rule of theological pontification, and that is...don't EVER issue a pronouncement that can be objectively proven false BURRRP

Yep. You read every page of his two thick eschatology books, and they were 100% correct, except for that ONE mistake. They'll make a tasty meal for you -- shall I send them over so you can defend every argument he makes in them?

File that away BURRRP future apologists. It's the cardinal tenet of your EEEP profession.

What's the cardinal tenet of your profession? Never pick up a garbage can with just one hand, maybe?

And come up with completely contradictory interpretations and conclusions, as so many have.

Interpreted: Stuff over the head of the average Skeptical nimnul, who thinks the mere existence of disagreement means that both sides are equally well-informed, equally fair-minded, and equally clear of tendentious preferences. Cuz citing disagreement is so much easier than actually figuring out who is right.

[Raphael]

Just FYI: Camping has suffered a stroke.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...732113&ref=rss

NZ Herald

Doomsday preacher suffers stroke
The California radio preacher who predicted the world would end last month is recuperating after suffering a mild stroke, his family and colleagues said.

Doctors have been monitoring the progress of 89-year-old Harold Camping since he was taken by ambulance from his Alameda home late last week.

"He is presently recuperating in a local hospital and the doctors are pleased with his progress," Family Radio's special projects coordinator Michael Garcia said.
[Article Continues]

© source where applicable

[lilpixieofterror]

And come up with completely contradictory interpretations and conclusions, as so many have.

I've always wondered why some atheist think pointing out "these two views disagree!" is an argument, just to name a few disagreements in science of the past and present:

Present:
- There is two contradictory views about the exact path human evolution took.
- There's several contradictory views about what direction electricity flows through a conductor.
- Nobody is sure rather or not Netharthals are direct ancestors, interbreed with early humans (meaning we are their ancestors), or are a totally separate and dead branch, of human evolution.
- Nobody is sure about the formation of the great red spot on Jupiter, how this storm is powered, and how it has been able to last for over 300 years.

Now a few of the past:
- There was much debate about 30 years ago about what killed the dinosaurs (the impact theory eventually became the accepted theory, once there was enough evidence found for it, although technically, some believe it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak).
- There was once a contradiction about how Mercury's orbit worked (until general relativity came about that is).

So SS, does this therefore prove that science is all false and should be thrown to the wayside because there's contradictory views and disagreements, among scientist?

[Soundsurfr]

Yep. You read every page of his two thick eschatology books, and they were 100% correct, except for that ONE mistake. They'll make a tasty meal for you -- shall I send them over so you can defend every argument he makes in them?

No need. There's nothing in his or yours that can be definitively proven, save for the end-of-the-world date, and then only after the date goes by. That was my point, which obviously went sailing over your head.

What's the cardinal tenet of your profession? Never pick up a garbage can with just one hand, maybe?

Oooh, good one. Of course, MY profession has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But I realize you have to fire off at least one grade-school level quip before you can hit the "Submit Reply" button. If I ever come across a twelve-step program for that, I'll e-mail you.

Interpreted: Stuff over the head of the average Skeptical nimnul, who thinks the mere existence of disagreement means that both sides are equally well-informed, equally fair-minded, and equally clear of tendentious preferences.

Nope. Don't think that at all. My question is, given your comment:

The point for today being: Self-studied “experts” like Camping are a bane to the church today; they don’t even need to be teaching cultic doctrines to be a danger.

What exactly is the criteria for determining whether a christian spokesperson is one of those self-studied "experts" like Camping, or a real, live expert like yourself?

[jpholding]

No need. There's nothing in his or yours that can be definitively proven,

Translation: "Dang. He challenged me to prove my point. Better hurry and get my foot out of my mouth."

That was my point, which obviously went sailing over your head.

As usual, your "points" have an unerring ability to morph after the fact.

But I realize you have to fire off at least one grade-school level quip before you can hit the "Submit Reply" button.

At such time as you graduate from grade school, we'll provide you with more advanced quips. Wouldn't want to strain your mental cajones using words with more than 5 letters.

Nope. Don't think that at all.

Yep. You think that all the time. It just changes any time your view is exposed as nincompoopery.

What exactly is the criteria for determining whether a christian spokesperson is one of those self-studied "experts" like Camping, or a real, live expert like yourself?

Wow, that one could be a Dumb Question of the Month...

[Soundsurfr]

I've always wondered why some atheist think pointing out "these two views disagree!" is an argument, just to name a few disagreements in science of the past and present:


Present:
- There is two contradictory views about the exact path human evolution took.
- There's several contradictory views about what direction electricity flows through a conductor.

You know Pixie, there's a rule of grammar that says when your predicate is plural, your verb should be plural. "There ARE conflicting views" as opposed to "There IS conflicting views". I can cut you a break on the spelling, but if you want to be taken seriously you should at least bring your grammar to the 4th grade level.

- Nobody is sure rather or not Netharthals are direct ancestors, interbreed with early humans (meaning we are their ancestors), or are a totally separate and dead branch, of human evolution.
- Nobody is sure about the formation of the great red spot on Jupiter, how this storm is powered, and how it has been able to last for over 300 years.

Now a few of the past:
- There was much debate about 30 years ago about what killed the dinosaurs (the impact theory eventually became the accepted theory, once there was enough evidence found for it, although technically, some believe it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak).
- There was once a contradiction about how Mercury's orbit worked (until general relativity came about that is).

So SS, does this therefore prove that science is all false and should be thrown to the wayside because there's contradictory views and disagreements, among scientist?

Here's the difference, Pixie. In the scientific disciplines, when two factions disagree, ultimately one will be proven right or wrong based on new data, and then both sides will agree. Scientists disagreed on whether or not a heavier-than-air machine could fly. The question has been settled, universally. Scientists disagreed as to whether or not organs could be successfully transplanted from one human to another. The question has been settled. Unsettled scientific questions pretty much always involve a lack of data, and can pretty much always be settled if and when sufficient data is obtained. The situations you point out above are simply unsettled questions that can ultimately be settled if we obtain more data. In fact, the "Netherthal" (sigh) question I believe has already been settled based on recent DNA evidence that there was human interbreeding. (And FYI, there are not contradictory views about which direction current flows in a conductor, just differing conventions. I'm pretty sure the designers of the computer you're working on right now know which way the electricity flows through the conductors.)

So how many religious questions have been settled by Biblical scholars over the years, Pixie? How will apologists settle the question of whether Calvinism or Armenianism is true? Or for that matter, whether Christianity is true and Islam is false? There is no set of earthly data that one can obtain to prove one over the other. So you're all just bloviating. And the worst bloviators are the ones who claim to be PROFESSIONAL bloviators. Ultimately, there is no difference between JP Holding and Creflo Dollar. They can both hold up their bibles and shout over each other all the live long day, and neither can ever prove the other wrong. That's why Camping screwed up. He made a falsifiable claim. Otherwise, he'd still be just as credible (or not credible, depending on your viewpoint) as any other bloviator, including Holding. And what's Holding's claim for superiority? Well, his accusation that Camping is "self-studied", while Holding is....what?

So I asked, knowing full well he would choose not to answer the question, and I was right.

[jpholding]

So how many religious questions have been settled by Biblical scholars over the years, Pixie? How will apologists settle the question of whether Calvinism or Armenianism is true? Or for that matter, whether Christianity is true and Islam is false? There is no set of earthly data that one can obtain to prove one over the other. So you're all just bloviating. And the worst bloviators are the ones who claim to be PROFESSIONAL bloviators. Ultimately, there is no difference between JP Holding and Creflo Dollar. They can both hold up their bibles and shout over each other all the live long day, and neither can ever prove the other wrong. That's why Camping screwed up. He made a falsifiable claim. Otherwise, he'd still be just as credible (or not credible, depending on your viewpoint) as any other bloviator, including Holding. And what's Holding's claim for superiority? Well, his accusation that Camping is "self-studied", while Holding is....what?

Much smarter than you. That one will earn a Platinum nomination, it will.

[Hamster]

It's too bad religion can't come to neat, even answers, unlike philosophy and history which are unshakably concrete

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And here we go again treating all disciplines as if they must be like the physical sciences. I suppose that since no one scientifically proves or disproves Platonism vs. Aristotleanism, we should abandon both ways of thought. Could it actually be we have a harder time with those due to a more difficult subject matter? How many debates are still going on amongst mathematicians, for instance? How long did it take to prove Fermat's Last Theorem? How many times has science "proven" something only to have it disproven in following years?

Perhaps you should pick up Kuhn's work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions to read what he says on the topic. In either case, looking at disagreement itself is no factor in determining truth and neither is just throwing up your hands and giving up. After all, you are of the opinion that all Christians are wrong, but that does not stop you from saying that just because that has not been proven, you will go with it.

And in closing, remember everyone that this post has been made in response to THE MAKER OF THE SUPERSONIC BEARS!

[jpholding]

Perhaps you should pick up Kuhn's work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions to read what he says on the topic.

To do that he'd have to yank it out from under his butt at the table, and he wouldn't be able to reach his dinner.

[Rational Gaze]

And in closing, remember everyone that this post has been made in response to THE MAKER OF THE SUPERSONIC BEARS!

Do you dare bear?