The topic for consideration was: beliefs which “discredit” one before the world.

Holding those beliefs will, if you have your finger on the pulse of popular reasons for rejecting Christianity, tend to discredit anything else you have to say.

Since this is true, then I don’t see the force of your argument. Perhaps you are thinking of it this way:

[1] If a belief has no scientific or historical evidence that contradicts it, then the world will not think it worthy to be “discredited.

[2] All the beliefs that Rube quoted have no scientific or historical evidence that contradicts it.

[3] Therefore, all the beliefs that Rube quoted the world will not think it worthy to be “discredited.

That’s the best way I can understand you. Perhaps you have another argument in mind. … Continuing with my critique based upon my understanding, I think we can agree that [1] is false.

We can analyze this more. Take a belief in Santa Clause. Now, I don’t know of any scientific or historical evidence that contradicts said belief. But it is nevertheless not a credit to your ken of epistemic beliefs to hold such views. Same with Unicorns, Ogres, Cyclops, etc. I know of nothing that contradict these beliefs.

The “world” (for our purposes, the set of all those who don’t believe the claims of Christ, or, more preferably: the “intellectuals” who don’t accept the claims of Christ, or, perhaps even more precise: the set of all intellectuals who hold no belief in a deity and thus don’t accept the claims of Christ), will say that we have no reason to believe in such things.

Certainly, the “world” will tell you that you have no reason to believe those things. Might as well believe in Santa. Or a Unicorn. Basing your belief on tales in a dusty old book isn’t going to convince them, and you, being a purported rational person, shouldn’t believe them either.

Furthermore, do only “scientific” arguments count? What about philosophical ones? Thus for many philosophical reasons, the “world” will say that it is foolish to believe in those kinds of things. Read the works of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. They mock and ridicule us for beliefs in virgin births, etc. They say that they don’t believe in that, just like they don’t believe that the Buddha was birthed from a virgin. Need more than 2,000 year old stories to provide reasons to believe. And, speaking about stories, why believe the Bible. There are more errors in it than there are words in the New Testament! And, your books wouldn’t have made it in if your “side” didn’t win the debates. So, given all of that, it certainly isn’t rational to believe that donkeys talk because you read about it in a book and “presuppose” that things like that can happen.

And, yes, many will say that some of these beliefs contradict scientific evidence. For example, an immaterial being causing physical things to happen. This contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, they say. You may not agree, but that’s not the point. if that were the point, then the YEC guys disagree with your putative scientific evidence. So we’re back to square one. Or, they will tell you that they have scientifically shown that all the states you label ‘mental’ states have been explained by the brain. There’s no need to import a notion of a ghostly mind (or soul). That is simply superfluous.

Or, take your belief (I assume you hold to this) that man was created as a certain kind of creature. That is, he didn’t evolve from ape-like creatures, and then God picked that animal and gave him a soul (we already saw that they think a soul superfluous and unscientific). Or, say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You don’t believe this. Yet to deny this is to hold a belief that contradicts the fossil evidence.

Or, take Occam’s razor. There are a great many of your religious beliefs that, the “world” claims, do no explanatory work, and are simply superfluous. They should be dropped, therefore. Thus by using this time honored scientific principle, holding many of the beliefs that you do contradict a good application of the razor.

As far as history. You should know that a great many historians, given their dating schema, deny that there was anything like a tribe such as how the Jews are described in the Bible. Or, they say, much of the writing comes from a time much later than the Jews were supposed to have written down the things in the Torah. Indeed, many historians will tell you that the evidence points toward much of the OT being written during the exilic period. Stories conjured up to give the Jews hope. So, some historians would say that the history reported in the Bible contradicts what they know from history. Of course, much of this is predicated on dating assumptions and presuppositions. But of course, that’s what the 6-day creationist will tell you as well.

Of course my aim here isn’t to try to defeat your beliefs. Or imply that these are good arguments. (Or even pretend that I gave a thorough presentation of them. More time and detail would be involved if I were attempting to do that.) We can obviously offer counter arguments that easily defeat these types of objections. But I think I have shown that the way the “world” looks at your position on many matters is that they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. And, if they don’t “contradict” science and history, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny and also provide shoddy reasons to believe the claims in the Bible. (And not contradicting isn’t sufficient. Santa, unicorns, ogres, trolls and men on the moon don’t contradict our scientific and historical beliefs. Yet most would say that it isn’t rational to believe in those things.)

Of course you’re going to offer your defenses. Try to show how the science is on your side. Or that they aren’t taking certain things into account. Fine. I’m not here to play devils advocate for the “world.” But, notice that this is exactly what the YEC guy will do. They will admit that some evidence is tough to deal with. Some seems to point your way, but then they have arguments for their position as well. Only the arrogant would say that there are no scientific, or rational, arguments for a young earth. Wise, among others, offers some. They will also complain that you’re using a certain paradigm. You have presuppositions that you use to interpret the evidence. Perhaps those assumptions are off base. if so, the theory they build on falters.

So, I see no distinction that helps you. No defeater to my argument from analogy. My only point here is to defend the point that OEC guys like to bring us, viz., “You young earthers hold beliefs not respected in the scientific community and thus you cause people to either abandon the faith, or ridicule it where they shouldn’t.” Having read many books by atheists, let me assure you that if the entirety of Christendom (I use that term loosely) switched on over to OEC, unbelievers would still mock us. The reprobate would find new reasons to deny their professed faith. They would do this under the guise of being “rational” or “scientific.”

In regards to your question about Wise. Let me first mention Byl’s book: God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe. He does get into those questions, and more, in that book. Perhaps when you get into the “evidences” I’ll offer posts specifically in response to them. Right now my purpose is different. Second, Wise does get into that in his book Faith, Form, and Time. And Alvin Plantinga, who is not a YEC guy, notes that this is a matter of presupposition. And lastly, as I’ve mentioned, if anti-realism is the case, your strongest case (on your assumptions) is rendered impotent. So, this debate isn’t anywhere near something like an open and shut case.

Peace,

~ME

Hate to break it to you, but beliefs in a resurrection, turning water into wine, floating axe heads, talking donkeys, men living hundreds and hundreds of years, having mud on your eyes making a blind man see, spirits, man having a soul, virgin births, women made from ribs, a man who becomes weak if his hair gets cut, a debil, hell, sin, wrath, holy God, God Himself, the Gospel, etc., tend to “discredit” Christians in the view of the world.

There’s a big difference though. Where is the scientific (or historical) evidence that directly contradicts any of these miracles? When we throw axeheads into water and watch them sink, we are merely observing that, in ordinary providence, axeheads sink. But we have no direct observation of that axehead that did float, when it floated. So what. As Christians, we certainly do believe in miracles — otherwise, we’re just Deists.

When we study cosmology, however, we are actually observing the same universe that was created. In particular, given astronomical distances and the finite speed of light, we are actually directly observing now, what happened then. Yes, I know from your quote way up yonder, “this inference rests on a number of assumptions, viz., the initial size of the universe, the speed of light as a cosmic constant, the relative rate of expansion, the ordinary emission and transmission of starlight from its point of origin to the earth, and so on.” I’m still saving my thoughts on that for another post, which I absolutely promise I will publish before the year is over!

Out of curiosity, though, your field-leveler Kurt Wise, you’ve touted him as seeing evidence for a young earth. Does he go the full distance and advocate a young Universe? (i.e. is he talking about geology or astronomy?)

2. I never said it was what we were here for. All positions have implications. I think the fair minded on your side must admit that there are possible implications that could allow for giving away many traditional theological doctrines. This won’t necessarily happen, but I think I have done a sufficient job here showing that some could use the same type of arguments and rheteoric to get rid of all sorts of things, e.g., the soul.

3. Okay. I’m just simply making some comments to a guy I’ve known for over 20 years. I’m not trying to condemn anyone for heresy. I think I’ve made myself clear here that I do not consider this an issue to divide over. Smart guys on both sides.

4. I agree that’s nonsense. But, not only do you indicate that you could have blinders on because of an agenda, but granting that you’re correct (i.e., that you’ve provided the entire story), it doesn’t change the alethic conditions.

5. No worries.

2. This is an interesting theological and academic debate, but it’s not what we’re here for. It’s an issue I am concerned about, not for its content, but for it’s implications.

3. I enjoy a good heated discussion as much as the next guy, but in the end, as the title of this post states, “I Surrender All,” not to sparkling wit or charming intellectual constructs, but to the God who made it all.

4. Admittedly, I am tainted, because my family and I were asked to leave a church for believing the earth was more than 6000 years old. Excuse me, but that’s nonsense. I don’t want a YEC church or an OEC church, but Christ’s church.

5. We all get a little sanctimonious when our pet theories are assaulted, present company included, so I apologize if I offend you or if my ‘arguments’ are not clear.

I never said you said God couldn’t use miracles. I merely pointed to doctrines that the “unbelieving world” finds laughable. Your belief in miracles “discredits” you in the eyes of the world. I’m merely responding to the argument as you framed it. You’re shifting the goal posts. By the way, when was the last time you told your unbelieving friends that you believe that a donkey talked to a man? And, did they listen with earnest respect to your oh-so rational position?

Next, I was assuming that you were aware that the Bible *does not* teach that Adam named every single cotton-picking animal in the world.

Gen 1:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Most standard commentaries admit that the “beats of the field” is a smaller subset of “all the beasts whatever.” Probably just the animals residing in the garden. You’ll also notice that fish, insects, other sea creatures, &c. are excluded from those Adam named.

Progressive creationist Gleason Archer says there may have been hundreds of species:

“many hundreds of species must have been involved in the original creation, not thousands as others propose. –Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible.

But, minus microevolution, the “kinds” were most probably smaller than the “species” we have today.

As all us good reformed folk at Rube’s blog know very well, “all” does not always mean “all.”

And why did God have Adam name the animals? To provide the first taxonomy? Or to realize how alone he was? Thus this could have been an exercise in finding out that he was alone amongst all the other kinds of animals. he didn’t have anything like him. This could have been noticed in a matter of hours. But I speculate. And so you would do too.

The point is, your comment is nothing like the death blow you intended it to be.

Looking at Adam after he was 2 seconds old would also give the appearance of age. Furthermore, you can only impute deception if you know what God intended by his creation. Did he intend to make sturdy, strong, and massive rocks which would display His power? Deep oceans to display his deep wisdom? Or to provide material for scientists to gander how old the earth was. When the New Heavens and Earth is created will everything look 1 day old? If not, will you, in heaven, call God a deceiver?

I never said the creation account was intended to show how to cook up a planet in one day. You’re imputing all sorts of motives to me that I have not intimated in this combox. You’re itching to fight a YEC guy.

And, I know we should use our intellect (thanks for contradicting yourself – you basically called all YEC guys “stupid.” Go tell that to Wise. To Byl. etc. Where’s your degree from Harvard? You sound like Dawkins.) The funny thing is that is exactly what the atheists will tell you. Use your intellect, get rid of the notion of a soul (science can explain all the phenomena without the addition of a ghostly substance). Use your intellect, drop the belief in talking donkeys. Use your brain, drop the belief in miracles. Use your brain, drop your belief in God. Don’t you know that the smartest the word has to offer have shows that the very notion of the Christian God is incoherent. Sure, you have some philosophers still fighting it, but then again, you have some scientists fighting and old earth.

Hopefully you understood the point I was making this time. Lastly, if scientific anti-realism is the correct model, so much the worse for your scientific arguments for an old earth. Have fun taking on the mammoth debate. It’s only been raging since at least Plato’s time.

A plain reading of His natural revelation – the world around us – shows it to have the appearance of great age. God certainly could have created everything with the appearance of age, but why would He? That borders on deception.

Again, the creation account was given to show that a loving God created a place for us, not to show how to cook up a planet in a day.

And I don’t particularly care for the opinions of ’smart people,’ but God did not create us to be stupid, either. He gave us an intellect; we should use it.

“That leads a lot of pseudo-scientific rabbit trails (see AiG website for many, many examples) that tends to discredit Christians in the view of the world, i.e., “Why should I listen to what you have to say about this Jesus guy if you think the world is flat?””

Hate to break it to you, but beliefs in a resurrection, turning water into wine, floating axe heads, talking donkeys, men living hundreds and hundreds of years, having mud on your eyes making a blind man see, spirits, man having a soul, virgin births, women made from ribs, a man who becomes weak if his hair gets cut, a debil, hell, sin, wrath, holy God, God Himself, the Gospel, etc., tend to “discredit” Christians in the view of the world.

The OEC guys will lose the “you guys are laughed at by the smart people” argument *every time.* Well, if they are orthodox in other areas, that is.