Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
An issue here is a clash of values, resulting in communication failure.
|
Yes, that is a good point to keep in mind before entering any debate. Once a person feels that their values are under attack, it becomes too personal for most and conversations degenerate away from constructive discourse. Veteran debaters, however, are cognitive of this and have learned to avoid taking things too personal if it causes them to stumble.
Quote:
|
Scientists value truth, whereas for creationists, and all fundamentalists, the central value is the moral cohesion of their community. The key for them is that the Bible provides moral certainty, creating a world view in which children can be protected and raised with strong values.
|
Yes, but only in part, I think. There are many other sources of good moral values that are not considered by them, so the Bible is much more. The Bible presents the God<->human experience and is creationist’s textbook to understanding that general and personal relationship. Just how the Bible is valued by them is the key to understanding their behavior.
Quote:
|
Creationists see their worldview as a tapestry for which the unravelling of one thread will rapidly unweave the whole.
|
Good point because if the Bible is regarded as foundational, holy and, by a few, inerrant, then flaws are not acceptable, else their faith is founded on shifting sand, not rock. For them, this inerrancy is a tenet of their faith. Enough cracks in their foundation and their house may fall. This is why foundational repair crews, like AIG, have been successful. But, this effort is, IMO, counter productive as the foundation design is at fault, so patch efforts are only temporary. Eventually, the fog will lift and the “Made in Sillyville” stamp will be discovered. Then they will move out and be welcomed in Christian communities outside of that land.
Indeed, most Christianity is already outside of Sillyville. They see within the Bible the great amount of allegories, parables, metaphors, hyperboles and other poetic devices helpful in communication to cause a much more open view as to the interpretation of certain scripture that would prevent the unraveling when science pulls on a given thread. Further, the large number of denominations that have arisen is due to the many tapestries – I like your metaphor -- that have evolved. Some unraveling has simply produced a larger number of tapestries. Yet, the fabric has not torn where the tenets to Christianity remain.
Quote:
|
To them, science is just a stalking horse for a liberal value-free agenda which promotes critical thinking that subverts community standards. Hence the truth of scientific claims is irrelevant to them, because the creationist ideas are only designed as a defence for a moral community, a way of holding the moral framework together…
|
That may be a bit too myopic, though I might imagine any fundamentalists down the street from Dawkins neighborhood might be inclined to feel that way. Even when science is seen as irreverent, the value of science is too prevalent to be truly irrelevant. They do drive cars and use electricity and computers, afterall. Yet, that requires deeper knowledge of science.
Because most believers are comfortable with superficial views of science, they are more vulnerable to false ideas that science is still doubtful in areas that are amazingly supported with solid evidence. They really don’t look at nucleosynthesis, redshift data, galaxy morphologies, entropy, CMBR, etc. and realize just how these separate scientific lines of evidence converge into the beautiful confluence known as the “theory” of Big Bang/Inflation. Given arguments from both sides, it is hard for them to weigh the truth on a plastic scale from the dollar store.