How Colleges Create Creationists

[Valka]

It's a hypothetical planet that may exist, based on observations and calculations performed by astronomers.

They are either correct or they're not.

[Buster's Uncle]

Bumped again...

[Elok]

Bumped for Elok...

Sorry, I've been out of the loop.  Off the top of my head, brief impressions:

1. Nobody is a "biblical literalist."  The book is too huge and complicated to truly read literally without a short-term memory disorder or flat-out insanity.  Everybody applies some level of interpretive gloss.  What's usually called "literal" is really just a naive form of nineteenth-century Protestantism.  Want proof that it's not literal?  Ask a "literalist" about "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins."  He'll call it symbolism, allegory, poetry, prophecy, anything but what it's actually saying.  Because that would be Catholic.

2. You can only be a "biblical literalist" even in that sense by willfully ignoring overwhelming discrepancies.  Even in the time of Christ, it would have been painfully obvious that Noah's Ark could not possibly have worked as described without perpetual divine intervention to iron out the endless snags.  I have a blog post analyzing this, but I'm feeling too lazy to go dig it up just now.

3. The general Orthodox (Christian) attitude to the OT is "Hey, look!  This part also looks like you could use it as a metaphor for Christ!"  I'm fairly indifferent about the whole thing, but it seems plain that the value of stories like Creation and the Fall lies not in what they say about a long-past history, but what they say about us.  I.E., that sin is an estrangement from God rooted in pride and the desire to be Gods for ourselves.  The Fall is not a story about snakes and trees; it happens every day.

Could probably say more, but it's late and the tickity-tickity of the keys is probably keeping my wife awake.

[Elok]

https://theredsheep.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/the-holes-in-the-boat/

The blog post I referred to--be warned, it's powerfully verbose.

[Valka]

"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."

Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.

[Buster's Uncle]

Huh.  I have zero patience with that Chariots of the Gods garbage because a) well, what you said; it's bull.  And b) usually racist.  Ever heard Dr. Hawass talking about the aliens building the pyramids?

[Buster's Uncle]

Elok, how do you figure Noah did it without help?  I don't think the Bible actually makes that claim, though good job getting enough workers on the project and leaving them behind...

[Buster's Uncle]

Hey Elok - this post https://theredsheep.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/tolkiens-crusaders/ is crying out for discussion.  Tolkien was ultra, ultra, ultra conservative, hundreds of years behind the times, and all the historical observations you make underline it in far higher resolution than I usually go into when making the point.  Shall we go OT here or make a new thread?

[Elok]

"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."

Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.

I go into more detail about it elsewhere on the blog.  Basically, I believe modern Westerners in general allow their belief in historical progress to blind them to the fact that their ancestors were intellectually more or less their equals, at least in terms of raw ability.  It's disconcertingly common for people to condescend to them, or even make up and perpetuate flat-out lies like "Columbus's friends thought the world was flat" for the sake of a clean, self-vindicating narrative.

[Elok]

Elok, how do you figure Noah did it without help?  I don't think the Bible actually makes that claim, though good job getting enough workers on the project and leaving them behind...

(is there a multiquote function here?  I can't find it)

I'm basically agnostic on Noah, but have a hard time believing that the story happened anything like actually described; it requires me to insert divine intervention for essentially no reason at every turn.  Given the oft-noted ubiquity of ancient flood narratives, it likely has some basis in fact, but that's all we can say.  In general, the Bible begins with the legendary and gradually coalesces into the historical, and I'm fine with that.  I don't believe anybody is saved by an intellectual acceptance of a narrative, plausible or otherwise; salvation is a matter of long spiritual discipline accompanied by the grace of God.

Go ahead and start a Tolkien thread, if you like; this'n seems likely to get cluttered.  As a starter, though, from what I know of him it's problematic to pigeonhole him as one thing or another politically.  He had a very elaborate and rigid view of the universe derived from his intense Catholicism, but this didn't always make him a reactionary.  He was obviously sympathetic to environmentalism, for example, and loathed the Nazis with a burning passion even before the war (I frickin' love that letter).

[Valka]

"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."

Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.

I go into more detail about it elsewhere on the blog.  Basically, I believe modern Westerners in general allow their belief in historical progress to blind them to the fact that their ancestors were intellectually more or less their equals, at least in terms of raw ability.  It's disconcertingly common for people to condescend to them, or even make up and perpetuate flat-out lies like "Columbus's friends thought the world was flat" for the sake of a clean, self-vindicating narrative.

I'm often flabbergasted at the mythology surrounding Christopher Columbus. His basic motive was to get rich and acquire political power. The way he treated the natives was abominable. I really don't understand why he's celebrated. And contrary to what I can only surmise is commonly taught in the average American schools when it comes to history (since it's always news to the American Mormon missionaries who turn up on my doorstep), Columbus wasn't the first European on this continent. The Vikings beat him by 500 years, and there's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland to prove it.

[Elok]

"...we assume our ancestors were idiots..."

Which "we"? And in what way? I have tremendous respect for people in ancient times who were skilled in math and engineering and those who tried experiments and measurements (the beginning of the scientific method). That's why I have zero patience with anyone who trumpets about "ancient aliens" and insists that humans couldn't possibly have done this or known that because they didn't have modern technology.

I go into more detail about it elsewhere on the blog.  Basically, I believe modern Westerners in general allow their belief in historical progress to blind them to the fact that their ancestors were intellectually more or less their equals, at least in terms of raw ability.  It's disconcertingly common for people to condescend to them, or even make up and perpetuate flat-out lies like "Columbus's friends thought the world was flat" for the sake of a clean, self-vindicating narrative.

I'm often flabbergasted at the mythology surrounding Christopher Columbus. His basic motive was to get rich and acquire political power. The way he treated the natives was abominable. I really don't understand why he's celebrated. And contrary to what I can only surmise is commonly taught in the average American schools when it comes to history (since it's always news to the American Mormon missionaries who turn up on my doorstep), Columbus wasn't the first European on this continent. The Vikings beat him by 500 years, and there's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland to prove it.

According to the Oatmeal, at least, he gets a day because Catholics in the Thirties wanted a day dedicated to a Catholic "Hero."  Given the intense hatred of Catholics prevalent throughout American society at the time, I can't really blame them, though I do wish they could have found an actually heroic Catholic.  The trouble is that Columbus is the most prominent Catholic associated with the American story and thus with the potential to become a patriotic focus; after him, you've got John Henry and a bunch of purely Maryland historical figures AFAIK.

He was also ironically boosted by said narrative that he was the lone skeptic against a bunch of flat-earthers, which makes him seem brave and wise, instead of a bumbling would-be tyrant who pimped out little girls to sailors.  But that story was concocted to emphasize the ostensible brute stupidity of his contemporaries--putting heavy emphasis on the backwardness of the RCC.  And, in the process, adopting him as the first of a wave of bright human beings paving the way for a less dumb future.  The flat-earth story is essentially Enlightenment propaganda.

[Buster's Uncle]

Quote a post and type a response.  Space down, quote another post and type a response.  It all pops up in the Quick Reply box in that order.  That's the mulitquote, not TOO awkward - you can a hit Preview to load the Reply page and get all the buttons at any time.

(is there a multiquote function here?  I can't find it)

-Which I just did before I quoted.

Below, same post, but done no differently than if quoting a different post.

Go ahead and start a Tolkien thread, if you like; this'n seems likely to get cluttered.  As a starter, though, from what I know of him it's problematic to pigeonhole him as one thing or another politically.  He had a very elaborate and rigid view of the universe derived from his intense Catholicism, but this didn't always make him a reactionary.  He was obviously sympathetic to environmentalism, for example, and loathed the Nazis with a burning passion even before the war (I frickin' love that letter).

Will do.

I know the letter you mean, and yeah; cool of him.


I thought enough of your God and Mammon post to email a link to the Reverend Doctor Buster's Daddy.  -He's spent too many years in the right reality bubble and doesn't see how much it's gotten to him - he needed to hear what you said about the consequences of theopolitics...

[vonbach]

I'm basically agnostic on Noah, but have a hard time believing that the story happened anything like actually described; it requires me to insert divine intervention for essentially no reason at every turn.  Given the oft-noted ubiquity of ancient flood narratives, it likely has some basis in fact, but that's all we can say.

Just for your information on the flood nowhere in the Bible does is say the Flood was global.
The Flood was local (the word used is land or area as I recall) the deluge was global.

[Buster's Uncle]

...The Reverend Doctor Buster's Daddy, who's read it in Hebrew, tells me the same thing, actually.  Good point...