Hovind/Callahan Debate

[johndcal]

The Hovind/Callahan debate page at Faith & Reason Ministries has been updated with expanded commentary, more pictures, and a video clip. The debate page is the ministries' most popular.

So if you missed the original publication or wish to see the most recent version, don't miss the action: young Earth creationism (YEC) vs. theistic evolution. Included are the entire Dec-5-04 debate (mp3) and excerpts (mp3), a video clip (mov, wmv, mpg), photos, commentary and links (including links to Callahan's letter to Hovind and Hovind's radio response, Aug-26-04, mp3).

See the Hovind/Callahan debate link at Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/



Does YEC or TE best model our observations of the physical and spiritual universe?

[Jose]

I consider self-deception to be at least as bad as deception of others.

Quite so. What about those who have been deceived into believing something is Absolute Truth when it isn't? They believe the deception. Worse, they believe that any challenge to their belief is the work of the devil, and should be obliterated by any means possible.

And then Massimo stated that it is disallowed to believe in god and accept evolution.

I don't think I would put it that way. Believing in god is wrong even if evolution is also wrong.

But Massimo's point, and that of others, is that the acceptance of evolution absolutely requires complete abandonment of religion. While your view may be true, and while a thorough analysis of data may support Massimo's conclusion, the fact is that many people are driven away by that assertion. These are people who have been raised to believe in god, and to believe that even thinking about evolution is a sin. The challenge is to get these folks past this mortal fear of thinking.

We don't do it by telling them they'll burn in hell forever if they listen to what we say.

Yeah, but we don't tell them that. The other side does. And they will do so regardless of what we say.

You make my point for me. Because the other side tells them that, and has done so since they were born, they believe it as fully as they believe in gravity. It is, to them, a Fact of Life. Therefore, when we say that science proves there is no god (or words to that effect), they are able to interpret it in only one way--the way they have been taught to believe. According to that belief, they will burn in hell forever if they listen to what we say. Hence, their mortal fear of thinking.

In any event, our strategies are complementary. No single strategy will work for everyone, so we need as many strategies as possible.

[Jose]

(BTW, the original post was obviosuly just an ad for their web page. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue. Typical theist deceit.)

Here, Juliod engages in an ad hominem stereotype asserting that all "theists" are deceitful, saying "typical theist deceit." Does Juliod know the views of all theists? Apparently Juliod is so uninformed, that he fails to realize that...

OK, we seem to be even, with a couple of ad hominems. How about we get back to the topic at hand?

By its very definition, if there was such a thing as "spiritual" reality, it would transcend the limits of science....

I think I'd be forced to agree here. If there were such a thing, it would, indeed, be impossible to demonstrate it. This gets at a discussion earlier in this thread between myself and juliod. My view was essentially what is expressed here by Rob. Juliod's view was that if such a reality existed, it would be demonstrable.

The puzzle is that people seem to respond to the non-demonstrable-ness of "spiritual reality" in two different ways. Some of us say that, since there is absolutely no hint of evidence for such a thing, and by definition can never be evidence, then it's a complete fantasy and should be ignored. Others say that what makes it so believable is precisely the fact that it is inherently non-demonstrable, and they choose a set of criteria to define their vision of this place, and then fight to the death to defend their vision against all others. These are wildly different responses to the same lack of data.

How to apply this to the topic of the thread... Well, the YEC view claims that their particular vision is responsible for the history of the physical, measurable world. This is testable, because it makes predictions about how the world should be. Those predictions are not met--in fact, far from it. The TE view claims that their particular vision underlies the physical, measurable world as we see it. This makes no predictions, and is therefore untestable, but at least it is not demonstrably wrong. It is entirely untestable, but it is consistent with the existing world. It seems to me that this solves the puzzle of the OP. One view is ruled out, the other cannot be (whether there is reason to believe it or not).

As for whether there is reason to believe this view, it is interesting to think this way: There are bazillions of other visions of the spiritual world that may, or may not be consistent with the existing world. If we rule out those that make testable predictions that are not met, we are left with a small zoo of beliefs that are wildly different, and equally untestable. How would anyone distinguish among them? Weigh the books that describe them, with the heaviest book as the winner?

[Rob]

Juliod engages in an ad hominem stereotype asserting that all "theists" are deceitful, saying "typical theist deceit." Does Juliod know the views of all theists? Apparently Juliod is so uninformed, that he fails to realize that...

OK, we seem to be even, with a couple of ad hominems. How about we get back to the topic at hand?

Why do you truncate my statement Jose, thereby taking it out of context? The fact is that Juliod has made an ad hominem argument, and I presented the evidence that refutes this argument, and you truncated what I said, thereby taking it out of context and distorting its meaning. The entire statement was,

Juliod engages in an ad hominem stereotype asserting that all "theists" are deceitful, saying "typical theist deceit." Does Juliod know the views of all theists? Apparently Juliod is so uninformed, that he fails to realize that many theists have played a pivotal role in defeating YEC attempts to introduce Creationism into our educational system. But off course, for those who opperate in gross stereotypes, such honest differences mean little, and allow them to apply labels and paint an entire group with such a broad brush.

It is clear, and you acknowledge it, that Juliod is making a blanket stereotype that all theists are deceitful, so I ask you Jose, how is it that if all theists are deceitfully trying to push their religious beliefs like YECs and Creationists, when so many end up standing toe to toe with evolutionists in the court rooms arguing against YECs and Creationists? Who are they trying to decieve? Yet, I note you truncate this point out of the above statement, which refutes the ad hominem arguement that all theists are deceitful. Now there are two possible reasons why someone might make such an ad hominem argument: 1) they know the truth but choose to ignore it, or 2) they are uninformed as to the truth which refutes such an ad hominem argument.

Now Jose, which one do you think it is more polite (and generous) to assume? Frankly, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and assume someone is just uninformed, rather than willfully being deceitful. Wouldn't you too?

I personally take the YEC/Creationist efforts to push their theological beliefs into the science classroom very seriously, as I have two young daughters that will have to be dealling with this soon enough.

The puzzle is that people seem to respond to the non-demonstrable-ness of "spiritual reality" in two different ways. Some of us say that, since there is absolutely no hint of evidence for such a thing, and by definition can never be evidence, then it's a complete fantasy and should be ignored. Others say that what makes it so believable is precisely the fact that it is inherently non-demonstrable, and they choose a set of criteria to define their vision of this place, and then fight to the death to defend their vision against all others. These are wildly different responses to the same lack of data.

Personally, I see this characterization above as to simple, not allowing for a distinction between "personal experience" and "beliefs about personal experience," or even "beliefs about interpretations of scripture," which are two very different things. For example, in comparative religion, this distinction becomes increasingly obvious as the different "belief systems" are viewed in a comparative analysis, and as these are contrasted with claims of personal spiritual experience. Institutional religion, with its rituals, beliefs, doctrines, and such, are distinguishable from claims of personal spiritual experience.

Whenever belief claims are made that make claims about the material universe, these are testable in my view. Hence I would agree,

YEC view claims that their particular vision is responsible for the history of the physical, measurable world. This is testable, because it makes predictions about how the world should be. Those predictions are not met--in fact, far from it.

You say,

The TE view claims that their particular vision underlies the physical, measurable world as we see it. This makes no predictions, and is therefore untestable, but at least it is not demonstrably wrong. It is entirely untestable, but it is consistent with the existing world. It seems to me that this solves the puzzle of the OP.

This sounds reasonable; there is a difference between philosophical positions based upon reason and logic, and so-called "personal spiritual experience," which can support but not prove the model you propose above, and can lead to similar theological views.

If we rule out those that make testable predictions that are not met, we are left with a small zoo of beliefs that are wildly different, and equally untestable. How would anyone distinguish among them? Weigh the books that describe them, with the heaviest book as the winner?

There is a long and developing academic tradition of Religious Studies and Comparative Religion that sheds light on the question "How would anyone distinguish among them?" And it is pointing to common values and even common expereinces which appear to be universal. But that would perhaps be another thead, and I am not even sure anyone is really interested.

One such example, of many such studies, is The Presence of Light: Divine Radiance and Religious Experience. (Matthew T. Kapstein (ed), Chicago, 2004).

[Jose]

Rob, it is preferable to discuss issues of moderating with moderators in PM's, not in the threads themselves.

Nonetheless, there is an important point here which is relevant to these debates in general. It is that what is logical and reasoned argument to one person may be ad hominem attack to another. Juliod's statement is based on logical analysis of his experiences. As such, it is a mere description of the world as he sees it. We may take issue with his statement if, to us, it is an attack and not a description. Perhaps we see it as gratuitous flame bait. We could ask juliod to support his assertion with evidence, but that would get us off-topic; to have such a discussion, it might be better to go to one of the threads we already have for analysis of deceits: Why Do Evolutionists Lie? and Why Do Creationists Lie?.

Similarly, Rob's statement that I quoted (with truncation) could be a simple description of the facts, or, since it specifically names juliod and suggests that he is uniformed, is it an attack on juliod? The remaining part (which I truncated) does not resolve this issue. Certainly, many denominations have fought to keep fundamentalist anti-science dogma out of the classroom, for which we are eternally grateful. But do laudable acts eliminate other acts that are less praiseworthy? Perhaps juliod knows of these laudable acts, but still believes that deceit occurs in other venues. Perhaps he is not so uninformed as Rob's statement suggests--in which case it would seem to be an attack, rather than a description of the facts.

Personal attack...description of facts...reasoned argument...sometimes the distinctions blur, depending on how we read the statement.

Therefore, I suggest that we simply remember the rules, particularly these:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. It's much more sensible to say "you err when you say that--your argument fails for these reasons..." than to say "to say something like that indicates that you are either deceitful or uninformed or ignorant or..."
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

There is often a temptation to sneak a bit of inflammatory stuff into a post, and there is always a temptation to respond to it in a counterattack. But, you know, it's rarely productive. Let us not succumb to temptation.

Of course, if we think an argument stinks, we should tear it to bits with all of the evidentiary support we can bring to bear.

[Arrow]

I observe the fact the in most of these "debates" that the moderator is also a very active participant in the "debate". I find this laughable. I see them act as "moderators" only when their arguments are in danger. The integrity of this site is highly debatable. Unfortunately, this site would be inappropriate for the debate, as no one here seems to know what actually constitutes a debate. You may consider my comments off topic, and out of line, but that is the norm for this site. I would further argue that any comments relative to fairness are appropriate for any thread.

If my comments seems inflammatory, it is only because the conduct of this site is inflammatory.

As to Private messaging, I've tried this approach with no result. At this point, I expect no results, only more immoderation.

Arrow

[QED]

I observe the fact the in most of these "debates" that the moderator is also a very active participant in the "debate". I find this laughable. I see them act as "moderators" only when their arguments are in danger.

Rather than derail a debate topic in this way why not start a new thread in the "Comments and Suggestions" subforum to air your views. You might like to beef it up with quotes showing where you think you've seen moderators using their powers to rescue their failing arguments. Failing that, PM me or any other admin of your choice so the matter can be investigated. This topic is not the place to be making general complaints or observations.

[Jose]

I observe the fact the in most of these "debates" that the moderator is also a very active participant in the "debate". I find this laughable. I see them act as "moderators" only when their arguments are in danger.

An interesting point, Arrow. Start us a thread to discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing what people think. As for PMing, it might be helpful to try PMing a different moderator, or several moderators. If you look around, you'll find that we are often on opposite sides of debates. And hey, what fun would it be to moderate, but not be able to participate? Yuck.

This topic is not the place to be making general complaints or observations.

OK, QED, I stand corrected. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

I personally take the YEC/Creationist efforts to push their theological beliefs into the science classroom very seriously, as I have two young daughters that will have to be dealling with this soon enough.

I offer you my heartfelt wishes for the best outcome. Here, there are a great many teachers who refuse to discuss evolution at all for fear of parental attack, and other teachers who even discuss creation as the "right way," or show a video of a monkey morphing into a human, and say "that's evolution." The effort that we should all be working together on is to ensure that science classrooms present data, and then reason from the data. That's not the tradition. Unfortunately, the tradition leads to too many misconceptions.

Personally, I see this characterization above as to simple, not allowing for a distinction between "personal experience" and "beliefs about personal experience," or even "beliefs about interpretations of scripture," which are two very different things. For example, in comparative religion, this distinction becomes increasingly obvious as the different "belief systems" are viewed in a comparative analysis, and as these are contrasted with claims of personal spiritual experience. Institutional religion, with its rituals, beliefs, doctrines, and such, are distinguishable from claims of personal spiritual experience.

You become philosophical! You are right, of course, that I did not distinguish between "personal experience" and "beliefs about personal experience," or even "beliefs about interpretations of scripture." I tend to jump ahead in my logic, without touching all the stepping stones. I suspect, however, that in reality, few people make this distinction. I suspect that the way the human brain is wired, it jumps automatically from experience to interpretation of experience to belief based on that interpretation (whether the experience is observation, measurement, discussion with others, or reading a book that professes to be Truth). It would be most excellent if every high school (or middle school?) had a mandatory class on Comparative Religion, but alas, with tax cuts, balooning deficits, and political ideology, funding for education is one of the first to go. We can't even afford physical education classes any more, with the result that we have an obesity epidemic--how could we fund Comparative Religion, which wouldn't have health benefits, but would tend to introduce cracks into the dogma that parents have soaked their kids in? I imagine that the Hovinds of the world would fight it. They'd call it "yet another attack on Christianity." Imagine, studying it as if it were a dead frog.

There is a long and developing academic tradition of Religious Studies and Comparative Religion that sheds light on the question "How would anyone distinguish among them?" And it is pointing to common values and even common expereinces which appear to be universal. But that would perhaps be another thead, and I am not even sure anyone is really interested.

In the absence of Comparative Religion classes, it might be of interest here. I can imagine it going one of two ways. Perhaps, everyone who considers her or his religion to be Aboslute Truth would become argumentative with others who say, no, their own religion is Absolute Truth. Or, everyone might say that these commonalities are obvious. I've usually seen the former. Hmmm...does it go in Chrisitanity, Other Religions, or in Science and Religion? Perhaps the latter, if we expect to bring in actual data.

[johndcal]

Jose wrote, "I'll ask a question, if I may. Since the definition of the spiritual universe is that it's spiritual, not physical, doesn't this mean the there cannot be observations of it? Isn't its nature kinda up in the air, and wholly un-demonstrable?"

Not at all. We can observe miracles, etc.

[McCulloch]

Jose wrote, "I'll ask a question, if I may. Since the definition of the spiritual universe is that it's spiritual, not physical, doesn't this mean the there cannot be observations of it? Isn't its nature kinda up in the air, and wholly un-demonstrable?"

Not at all. We can observe miracles, etc.

What is a miracle? How many have you personally observed?

[Cathar1950]

I am reading this book called the Holographic Universe. It mentions strange things that are often done that look like miracles yet they believe they are natural abilities we all have. Personally I believe that there is not a difference between the physical and spiritual. They are both part of the whole and natural unless your dualistic.