Re: ugabooga god of the universe(was: Re: Chapp article)
Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:19:26 EST

Hi Glenn.

In a message dated 11/11/99 9:40:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, writes:

When one rejects the defending of facts, one must decide what the
alternative is--the defending of non-facts? It is easy to reject something
like historicity but it is very difficult to replace it with anything

But not all facts are of equal value (to say nothing of how one determines
what constitutes a fact in all that "bloomin', buzzin' confusion" out there).
We may (and do) agree that there are facts, but obviously weigh them in
different ways.

<<And never have I asserted that the Bible is only history.>> [snip]

Excellent. Now that you have conceded to my point of view, all we have left
are a few squabbles over how we identify the types of literature in the
Bible! :-)

>Science itself is dependent on analogy, metaphor, and myth in its growth
>operation. David Livingstone (along with many others) makes this point
>succinctly in a paper from the 1980's published (I think) in the Annals of
>the Association of American Geographers. >>

The reference is:
Livingstone, D.N. and Harrison, R.T., 1981, Meaning through metaphor: Analogy
as epistemology: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 71,
p. 95-107. and a reply to discussion in 1982, v. 72 p. 275-277.

<< I would not and never do disagree with scientific observation and theory.>>

And theory? So you would have stuck with the aether in 1905 rather than
follow Einstein?? Or Ptolemy rather than Copernicus?

<<But do you tell the editors of your journals what a wonderful myth you have
in your scientific paper? Of course not--it would be a ridiculous thing to

George answered this better than I can. But I would point out that in the
1930's Bailey Willis (in a respected journal) called continental drift "ein
Marchen" [umlaut over the a] i.e. a German fairy tale or myth. Guess he was
right! ;-)

<<You don't understand the YECs. They are not interested in just the facts
maam, >>

Could be; you certainly were an insider. But I think it makes more sense to
see their approach as closely derived from Reidian Scottish Common Sense
Realism as mediated through 19th century Princeton and then combined with
social paranoia consistently fanned to flames since World War I.

<<...they are interested in their fairy tale (which violates all
observational data) about the global flood. They are doing what you say we
christians should do--not pay attention to empirical data and just believe
the Bible. That is what gives the power to the YEC movement!>>

I think you grossly underestimate the social issues shaping YEC thinking.
This is not just an epistemological issue.

You have stated in other posts that you don't think that the lack of any
consensus among concordists counts against the position. [My apologies if
I'm misrepresenting you, but I think you were pretty clear on this]. That is
because you are the first one to be right. Keep in mind what this means --
over the last several thousand years since the Bible was
written/compiled/redacted, several billion readers have been unable to
properly interpret Scripture. You've criticized as inept (or some such
word), a God who could not make his "facts" clear to readers and had to
resort to "fables". But if you are correct, then your God is just as inept
as mine. He couldn't get the message across properly in BG (Before Glenn)
days even with "facts". As I see it, the only thing more devastating to your
view of God than having your theory of Scripture be wrong is if you're right!

But I'm sure you'll disagree!! Anyway, this discussion always hinges on how
we see and identify types of literature, which brings us back to where you
and George left it a few weeks ago. And so shall I.

Karl V. Evans