“If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s made of wood, and therefore, a witch!”
That little tidbit of logic gone wrong from Monty Python and the Holy Grail has always amused me. It’s a fine example of just how wrong logic alone can go. I used to think it was a highly absurd example. But then I read this. It attempts to show that when read from the right “frame of reference,” the creation story given in Genesis 1 is logically consistent and also physically consistent with the world we currently see.
Lessons for the kids? First, starting from the conclusion (in this case, that Genesis 1 must be literally true, so we need to make the facts fit its account) is Very Bad. Second, if you’re willing to try hard enough, you can rationalize just about anything. Third, when you try to turn a story into something it was never intended to be, you make it — and yourself — look pretty silly.
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
Isn’t that how our courts operate? Draw conclusion first, then support it.
For example?
Hell, pick an issue.
They work in a similar manner, from the perspective of the prosecutor, yes. The police investigate a case and present what they feel is the most likely explanation (assuming everyone is honest, of course). The DA then takes the police’s theory as fact and works to prove it to the jury, while the defence attorney works to undermine the prosecution’s theory, if not necessarily advance one of their own.
Lessons for the kids? First, starting from the conclusion (in this case, that Genesis 1 must be literally true, so we need to make the facts fit its account) is Very Bad.
I think you should read the post again. First of all, I never claimed that Genesis 1 must be true. I do, in fact, think that it is true and I think I have sufficient reason for holding that belief. Second, I never attempted to make the facts fit the account. If I were to do that I would have to massage the facts in order to align with the text. I didnt do that nor did I need to. The match is rather clear.
Second, if you’re willing to try hard enough, you can rationalize just about anything.
You do have a point. Kevin seems to be providing an obvious example of that on the forgery story. (If I may be so bold as to offer my advice: Perhaps he should wait for more evidence before he begins adding his spin. It might allow him to save face if the documents do turn out to be fakes.)
Third, when you try to turn a story into something it was never intended to be, you make it — and yourself — look pretty silly.
Oh, what was the story intended to be? From my understanding, it is a creation story. I also believe that it claims to be the creation story so I would suspect that it if that claim is true that it will correspond to what we are able to observe.
Also, I noticed you never really pointed out why my argument was in error. Were you planning to do that?
Joe:
Problem is, you have to start from at least that assumption, if not that conclusion, to even try to make the case you’re making. There’s no logical course that would lead you to suspect that Genesis is a literal account, so you have to have started from that assumption.
Sorry, but to a skeptic, your twisting of God creating the “lights in the firmament” into God “[transforming] the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent” so that they “can now be seen from the vantage point of Earth’s surface” is massaging both the facts and the story to make them fit.
Yeah, what an idiot Kevin must be for taking the word of the White House (which hasn’t contested the authenticity of the documents) and a major news organization over the innuendos of a few partisan hacks with web access. We leftists will believe anything, huh?
Would it really matter if I did? Even if I managed to prove it was wanting, you would simply promise to “respond later” and let it drop, as you’ve done in the past with both me and Kevin T. Keith. Sure, I could cite numerous Biblical experts, even limiting it to believing non-Catholic Christians, who would claim that Genesis was never intended to be a literal account of how the creation took place, but rather a figurative story for spiritual truth, but you would simply scoff and produce your own experts who say otherwise.
Of course, any fossil evidence I might produce that contradicts the order in which the species were supposedly created would also be thrown out, being the work of those evolutionist quacks.
Honestly, I thought your piece pretty much spoke for itself, without the need for additional commentary by me. I have no problem allowing people to judge it on its merits without being prejudiced by my input.
Tom:
Thought I would come check out some of your work
Problem is, you have to start from at least that assumption, if not that conclusion, to even try to make the case you’re making. There’s no logical course that would lead you to suspect that Genesis is a literal account, so you have to have started from that assumption.
We all have assumptions. We can’t escape them. We have to have starting points. From there, our inquiry begins. As we gather data, we apply logic and make inferences.
What confused me was your critique of Joe’s starting point as being illogical. His starting point is that Gen 1 might be literally true.
What is your starting point about Gen 1?
Jeff:
There’s nothing at all wrong with starting from that point; but when the evidence no longer fits that starting point, the logical thing to do is to adjust the starting point, not the evidence; and that’s where I fault Joe on this one. He acts not as if Gen 1 might be literally true; he acts as if it must be literally true. So he changes the creation of the stars to a change in atmospheric conditions that allows the stars to be seen.
I can’t exactly tell you where my starting point on Gen 1 was, but my understanding of it now is that it’s one of two oral creation stories included in Genesis, that was passed down verbally for generations before it was ever committed to stone or papyrus or whatever it was committed to. It’s a story that ancient people used to try to explain things which they did not understand. And assuming God exists (you know where I stand on that one), it establishes a spiritual framework for the laws which are to follow.
And this piece is not, by any stretch, my best work.
This is better, and this is better still.
But thanks for checking us out.