Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study conducted by Katharine Hayhoe’s dad suggests even recorded lectures by Katharine Hayhoe can convert climate skeptics.
Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
A new study finds that a lecture from evangelical climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe successfully educates evangelical college students, validating the “trusted sources” approach
Approximately one-quarter of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, and that group also tends to be more resistant to the reality of human-caused global warming. As a new paper by Brian Webb and Doug Hayhoe notes:
a 2008 study found that just 44% of evangelicals believed global warming to be caused mostly by human activities, compared to 64% of nonevangelicals (Smith and Leiserowitz, 2013) while, a 2011 survey found that only 27% of white evangelicals believed there to be a scientific consensus on climate change, compared to 40% of the American public (Public Religion Research Institute, 2011).
…
Hayhoe lecture’s effectiveness
The participants filled out a survey before and after the lecture, detailing their acceptance that global warming is happening, its cause, whether there’s a scientific consensus, how high of a priority they consider it, how worried they are about it, and how much it will harm various groups. The results showed an increase in pro-climate beliefs for every single question after listening to Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture.
Acceptance that global warming is happening increased for 48% of participants, and that humans are causing it for 39%. Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants. 52% were more worried about climate change after watching the lecture, and 67% increased their responses about how much harm climate change will do. 55% of participants viewed addressing climate change a higher priority after attending Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture. For most of the remaining participants, there was no change in responses to these questions.
By testing three different lecture approaches, Webb and Hayhoe also concluded that the lecture was equally effective when presented in person or as a recorded video, and that adding material about common climate misconceptions didn’t make the lecture any more effective.
…
The abstract of the study by Katharine’s dad;
Assessing the Influence of an Educational Presentation on Climate Change Beliefs at an Evangelical Christian College
Brian S. Webb, and Doug Hayhoe
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change. This disparity is particularly evident among evangelical Christians, for whom theological conservatism, general scientific skepticism, political affiliations, and sociocultural influences may impede their acceptance of human-caused climate change. Climate advocates have attempted to engage the evangelical community through various educational initiatives; lacking empirical measurement, however, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of such programs. Here, we present the results of a study that addresses this lack by adapting questions from the Six Americas of Global Warming survey to measure the climate change beliefs of undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college before and after attending a lecture by a Christian climate scientist. The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change. The results demonstrate a significant increase in the proclimate beliefs for students in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the impacts of the live and recorded lectures or between the recorded lectures with and without misconceptions. These findings affirm the value of climate education among evangelicals; highlight the potential utility of such presentations, both recorded and live; and point to opportunities for research in the area of faith-based climate communication.
Read more: http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1
Who can argue with dad’s peer reviewed science? Clearly all alarmists have to do to achieve complete victory in the climate debate is to convince everyone to watch a Katharine Hayhoe video.
Thanks Dad, I needed that……
That Heyhoe’s daddy is in on her pseudo biblical deception is not surprising but still disappointing.
I’m unable to sway anyone to my skeptical views because they involve math and statistics. Maybe I ought to study homiletics.
Not a single word about what was IN the miraculous lecture. All it proves is she is a skilled persuader. If it was anything genuine, they would certainly have at minimum provided a summary.
She just cherry-picked her audience, then arranged the ultimate in pal review and probably fudged some data. Straight out of the AGW playbook.
“All it proves is she is a skilled persuader.”
This may not even prove that much. I’m going to make couple of assumptions. One is that an evangelical Christian college is likely to be in the south. The other follows on the first that most of the students would probably be from the south.
When Southerners are engaged in conversation, or whatnot, with someone who is pleasant and respectful they tend to treat the person respectfully and pleasantly in return. At least some would be likely to fib a bit ‘so as not to hurt the nice lady’s feelings.’ This sort of thing is considered to be good behavior and the kind of thing Grandma would be proud of. Grandma loves good manners.
I won’t declare that this is how things must be. I’ve never met any of these people involved so don’t know them. But, I think it’s likely.
A cynic might say that she used that behavior to achieve a desired result, but I’m not a cynic. So, I won’t say it.
Bless her little heart!
Climate alarmist are evangelicals.
88 participants??? 88. 88!!
That is a representative sample????
She CLEARLY gets her “scientific” rigor from her father.
I bet all 88 had to attend in order to get a class credit for that semester.
Perhaps it would have been more biblically meaningful if it had been 70×7…
Did she define what the “consensus” is? It occurs to me that a consensus statement would have difficulty getting signatures if it was along the lines:
“I am convinced by evidence and reasonable inference that the majority of the warming of Earth since 1890 was caused by human activity and that it is currently dangerous and will undoubtedly become more dangerous if human activity causing said warming is not curtailed.”
Without this type of analysis I believe the very nature of the “consensus” studies is questionable and more akin to detecting political or religious beliefs.
The signed statement approach is that taken by the Petition project that is mostly disparaged by the consensus crowd because it disagrees with counting subjectively analyzed abstracts for agreement with an unspecified statement of causation or quantification.
The problem is the public interpretation of these “consensus findings”with the previous president and Secretary of State demeaning those that espouse any doubt and refusing to hear any part of it without having 97 statements of their preferred view for every doubter given a voice.
An evangelist appealing to evangelists. Sort of like when they bought themselves a Pope.
And once again, Progressivism – through the tentacles of warmism – corrupts what it touches.
Never fails.
What would I infer if it were shown that Hayhoe were effective in a Church, but not in a Mosque?
That muslims refuse to listen to women?
Now this is science! In a pseudo-scientific kind of way.
In a “progressive” kind of way, too.
What is the current “creed” of a “climate change believer” at this point?
I think Euphonius Bugnuts posted this; I archived it from this blog a while back:
The Anthropocene Creed
I believe in CO2, the Gas Almighty,
Creator of Warming on Earth.
I believe in Climate Models, the only guides, our Lords.
Which are conceived by the Navier-Stokes,
Born to make climate scary
Suffered under climate skeptics
Were crucified by emails, dead and buried;
They descended into Hell;
On the Third Assessment Report they rose again from the dead;
They ascended into policy heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of the Administrator Almighty;
From thence they shall come to judge the emitters and the dead.
I believe in the Hot Spot;
The Holy Scientific Consensus;
The Communion of Experts;
The forgiveness of emissions;
The resurrection of Gaia;
And the Gas Everlasting.
Amen.
The Anthropocene Creed, a confession of faith. pic.twitter.com/xZ4c7bTD90
— Euphonius Bugnuts (@EuphoniusNuts) December 9, 2016
It would be even more effective with puppet strings.
Blech! Some of the people on this forum are letting their true feelings towards religious people shine through. Your opinion of Christians or even religious people is noted and ignored.
Now, lets get down to business. First, Mrs. Hayhoe is Evangelical in only the most modern interpretation. Her husband is Andrew Farley, a pastor in Lubbock, Texas, where Texas Tech is located and they both teach at Tech. The church he pastors is apparently non-denominational and he is an author of multiple books that find fault with churches and ministers who would be defined as more classical Evangelical. His theological views seem to lean towards Evangelical but I would need to read his books to get a better read on his theology and quite frankly, I don’t really get into the negative “old churches are mean” mentality and so would never bother to read his books.
It would appear that Mrs. Hayhoe’s embrace of AGW is more an expression of her education and not her faith, which doesn’t come as a shock since Secularism is much more likely to embrace the primary tenets of AGW than Evangelicalism ever would..
Since true AGW is an expression of Malthusian thought, most modern Evangelicals feel repulsed in regards to the belief system. As a Pentecostal (who is much more conservative than most Evangelicals), I can tell you that Pentecostals reject AGW at an almost 100% rate. Indeed, I have noticed that most Pentecostals tend to be quite capable of using basic logic and critical thinking to point out all the ridiculous holes in AGW and we recognize it is basically just another religion that requires faith. Not only is it a religion but it is a depressing one that provides no real hope.
So, honestly, stop insulting religious people, especially Evangelicals. The reason why the majority percentage of the population in America would be considered skeptical is because we (those Christians you consider ignorant and brainwashed) actually agree with you.
Well said!
“Indeed, I have noticed that most Pentecostals tend to be quite capable of using basic logic and critical thinking to point out all the ridiculous holes in AGW and we recognize it is basically just another religion that requires faith. Not only is it a religion but it is a depressing one that provides no real hope.
So, honestly, stop insulting religious people, especially Evangelicals. The reason why the majority percentage of the population in America would be considered skeptical is because we (those Christians you consider ignorant and brainwashed) actually agree with you.”
This holds true for most Evangelicals of other denominations,too.
I would like to add that most young evangelicals have just come out of a long period of CAGW indoctrination in our public schools. That any can be considered skeptics at all is indicative of the weakness of that argument.
It takes time to unlearn misinformation, perhaps equal to the period of indoctrination.
SR
Andrew,
According to The Conversation article, apparently her husband was one of her first converts.
The “Ravene” of Climate Science
Katharine Hayhoe: Rapper muse.
“The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey…”
“Treatment,” eh? Are they propping viewers’ eyes open, ala “Clockwork Orange”?
aka the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Just to be clear … Evangelicals are really not an hard evidence-demanding group for explanations of the natural world around us. Living your life on faith, (I’m not knocking it, really) means one can be moved from one belief system to another, based on faith and doctrine alone. Christians eventually after much persecution (think, fed to the lions) finally converted the Roman Empire from millennia of mystical gods and goddesses controlling their lives.
So Hayhoe’s hand-wavium of IPCC scripture and invocations of climate model certainty certainly though qualifies as bearing false witness. But she does not understand her scientific sins because undoubtedly she to is wholly immersed in her climate religion.
Joel O’Bryan August 28, 2017 at 9:10 am
Your basic tenet seems to be that people who fall for one belief system will fall for any belief system. Yet, you note early Christian converts were fed to lions. Considering these converts who had been raised under the belief system of the Roman religion were willing to face torture and death rather than recant, Christianity must not be just ANY belief system.
SR
Stevan,
Yes, martyrs do mean that Christianity is just like any other religion or belief system. Most, if not all, have true-believing martyrs willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith, even if it doesn’t, like Isl@m, promise a paradise in the afterlife.
So Christian martyrs don’t show that their religion was in any way special.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 7:23 pm
As usual, Gloateus, you find a way to not see the point of what I say. You “missed” that Joel’s point about believers in one faith-based religion being easily recruited to ANY other was the subject of my response, even though I used the word “converts” in 2 of my 3 sentences.
You conflate 2 distinct groups:
1. People who are raised from birth to hate those who don’t believe in their faith, and to especially hate those who leave their faith. The group you mentioned offers monetary as well as “spiritual” rewards for their martyrs. Roman society did the same. Martyrs in these belief systems die for their family and their society.
2. People who were raised under the above system and converted to another belief despite knowing their family will disown them and their society may kill them. Then they accept torture and gruesome death rather than recant their new religion. They did not accept death for sticking with the belief system they were raised under, but for changing to another. (Jewish converts to Christianity also faced threat of death from their society.)
Why would a person, faced with torture and death, not agree to drop their new religion and rejoin their family and their society? If their newly chosen religion was no different than their old, they would have.
So, Gloateus, martyred Christian CONVERTS do show Christianity is special.
SR
Stevan,
They most certainly do not show any such thing.
There are right now converts to Isl@m willing to die for that faith, following those who already have done so.
Nor were many communist martyrs raised Communist.
I didn’t miss any point. It appears that your belief system has blinded you to the obvious reality all around us today and in the past century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/muslim-convert-who-tried-to-blow-up-restaurant-with-nail-bomb-fo/
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/canada-swat-team-shoots-dead-muslim-convert-suicide-bomber/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-355622/Suicide-bomber-profile-Lindsay-Jamal-married-Muslim-convert.html
That seems to be the attitude of the authors of this “study”–Christians are gullible dunderheads except when they believe the “right” things. Then that means it’s working!
Joel O’Bryan, you said “Evangelicals are really not an hard evidence-demanding group for explanations of the natural world around us.”
That’s actually not true. Hollywood likes to find someone who epitomizes all the stereotypes that certain people have about Christians who professes Jesus and say “look at this stupid idiot living in a fantasy world” but that is not anywhere near the actual reality. Most Christians, especially in today’s exceptionally Secular world, have had to confront their own personal beliefs and have reached well reasoned conclusions for why they continue to profess that faith. Many of us debate scientific dogmas, not because we live in a fantasy world, but because we question the intentions and mindsets of those behind the increasingly secular dogmas.
As a minor point here, Roger Bacon, the “father” of the modern scientific method, was a Franciscan Friar. Sir Isaac Newton, though he rejected the trinity, was a professed Christian. Professions of faith in a religion does not make us (meaning Christians) wild eyed idiots who live in a fantasy world.
Do not confuse the individual (an individual) with group characteristics.
One only needs to look at the support that the Intelligent Design/Creationism has within the Evangelical community as a group.
Intelligent Design is passed-off as “evidence-based” when it is no such thing. It is pure pseudoscience junk wrapped up to look like science. (sound familiar?) This is exactly where Prophet Hayhoe and her fellow travellers use as a jumping off point to the pseudo science of Climate models and their wholly-subjectively tuned projections.
On this topic, I frequently like to think back to Dr. Michael Crichton’s presentation on Climate Change, Religion, and Extraterrestrial Life.
He is utterly devastating to the climate pseudoscience dogma of subjectively tuned climate models, subjectively fudged proxy climate records, and altered climate records all to meet expectations. This is where Hayhoe and her ilk operate while calling themselves scientists.
It is contrary to Protestant doctrine to base Christian belief on anything other than faith. Attempts to “prove” God’s existence, such as by Medieval Catholic Scholastic philosophers, are anathema to Lutherans and Calvinists, if not Anglican, who aren’t really Protestants, just because they reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Injecting religious belief into science is thus not only antiscientific but against Protestant theology. It’s obviously antiscientific because science rightly rejects supernatural explanations for observed phenomena.
Joel is absolutely right about ID, which is nothing but a laughable attempt to sneak creationism into public schools. It’s not only unscientific but antiscientific for the reason given above, and because the preposterous doctrine of “irreducible complexity”, which doesn’t exist, requires supposed scientists to give up on biological inquiry into complex structures.
Creationists are blasphemers, since their false god is not only incompetent, but cruel and deceptive. Besides which, the Protestant God must remain hidden. If He, She or It were to show Itself rationally, then what would be the value of faith?
Modern Catholic doctrine, as opposed to Medieval, might resemble Protestant thought on justification, but I’m unfamiliar with 21st century Roman Catholic theology. My impression however is that justification is still by “works” and not by faith alone. Orthodox Catholicism however agrees with Protestantism on faith, at least in part.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Justification#Western_v._Eastern_concepts_-_Implications
Gloateus,
You appear to be confusing the protestant belief in justification through faith alone (by grace alone) with the general belief in God. The two are distinctly different and there is no “anathema” to an intellectual inquiry into the existence of a creator. In addition, I would argue that it’s a stretch to condemn creationists as blasphemers, as one’s belief regarding the mechanism of creation is independent of one’s belief regarding salvation from sin (which is the point of a Christian’s belief). In fact, the intra-varsity debate creation debate amongst Christians is largely a distraction from, and unnecessary to, the central tenets of the Christian faith.
Regarding the idea the protestant understanding of God requires Him to be hidden…well, that’s an odd belief that I’m frankly unfamiliar with. I can certainly say that this is not a overtly taught belief that I’ve ever heard of. Certainly there are some teachings from which one might infer that the creator remains hidden in general, but since a protestant takes as canonical the book of Romans, it’s not truly possible to have this belief since it’s clearly stated that “God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen” directly implying that He is not hidden (yes, yes, I had to look this up).
Anyway, just clarifying your points regarding protestant beliefs.
To the larger point of this post, it’s fairly frustrating to see someone use their religious creds to peddle a dubious “science”…
rip
Rip,
I’m not confusing anything.
Of course a person can believe in a deity without being a Protestant or any other kind of Christian. But Paul in Romans makes plain that it is by faith alone that we are justified.
It should be obvious then that God must remain hidden. If there were rational, physical evidence of His existence, then of what value is faith? That He made the universe (and others if they exist) and intervenes in human history must be believed purely on faith for salvation. In Calvin, even then it isn’t assured, since the Elect are chosen before they are born. Their free wills will make the right choice.
The concept of the hidden God is however not just Protestant. It’s standard in Christian theology, to include Roman Catholicism, as per Aquinas. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it, if you have studied Christianity. It’s also common in other religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_otiosus
But its Protestant version comes from Martin Luther via passages in Romans. Luther used Aquinas’ notion of “deus absconditus” to explain the mystery and remoteness of God.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/luther/
Creationism is blasphemy, since it requires telling lies about God, ie that He is an Idiotic Designer, a vile Deceiver and Sadist. Where the man-made Word of God contradicts His Work, it’s idolatry to opt for the Word, ie the grave sin of bibliolatry, worshiping a book rather than God, as revealed in Creation, the observed natural world.
Gloateus,
Thank you for your response. I’ll offer the one additional point that I believe is being missed, and that’s simply: faith in the existence of God is different than faith in Jesus as the savior. I believe that distinction is crucial and is the reason for the mis-characterization of the protestant beliefs. Happy to discuss further, but would suggest that we might be approaching the line where we’ve ceased to offer constructive commentary to the post, and are venturing into no-mans land for WUWT. 🙂
rip
I should add that the concept of God changes over the course of the Old Testament. At first, He appears in human form to Adam and Eve, and walks with Abraham. But later He talks to Moses from fiery vegetation and storm clouds. Then, finally, to see Him is to die.
Hence one reason for the need for Jesus.
ripshin August 28, 2017 at 12:29 pm
I’m happy to leave a judgement on relevance and suitability of theological discussion in these comments up to our esteemed host and moderators.
In Protestantism, belief in the entire Trinity must be based upon faith alone, not just in Christ the Son, but in the Father and Holy Spirit as well.
As Luther said, “To be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason”. As the Early Church Father Tertullian wrote in De Carne Christi (c. AD 203-06), “It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd”, ie the story of the Resurrection and the gift of eternal life.
My comments on Protestant theology are not controversial. They are at the core of what it means to be a Protestant, ie justification by faith alone. Anglicans aren’t considered Protestants by Calvinists (and maybe Lutherans, but I don’t know) because they adhere to such Catholic doctrines as apostolic succession, transubstantiation, anointed priesthood (instead of the priesthood of all believers), infant baptism and that not just the Bible (solo scriptura) but accumulated Church theological teaching count as sources of doctrine.
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 5:50 pm
ID exists because federal courts have rightly found that creationism is religion, not science, hence quite properly cannot be taught in public schools as science. Comparative religion class is OK, although not too many high schools have those. It is both antiscience and false religion.
That ID was merely old creationist wine dressed up in new, supposedly secular bottles in a crooked attempt to circumvent the Constitution, was hilariously demonstrated in the Dover trial. The ID “text” at issue in that school district had so ineptly copied an older creationist text that its errors plainly showed the derivation.
ID is not science but a backdoor attempt at sneaking false religion into what should be real science classes.
This will be my last comment on the inside baseball of Christian theology. I do feel the subject is relevant to this post, however.
I was pleasantly surprised that Wiki has a well-written and sourced entry on the subject of justification, although it doesn’t mention the Anglican communion in its lead in, just its Evangelical offshoot Methodism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)#Anglican_.2F_Episcopal
It also fails to discuss whether faith in Jesus’ sacrifice is the same as faith in the existence of God, an issue trenchantly raised in these comments. However, Christian faith requires belief in the Trinity and God’s divinity, in some sense, so IMO there’s really not much of an issue there. Heretical opinions as to the nature of Christ abound, however, to include Newton’s and those of the American Founding Fathers (and Mothers in the case of Abigail Adams, like her husband and other prominent Founders a Deist).
Technically, America isn’t a Christian nation, but a Deist nation. Unless you go by percentage of people who profess a particular religion, in which it is still Christian, adding up all denominations. In another generation, it might not be. But in terms of its founding document, it’s Deist, with a Unitarian Creator, “Nature and Nature’s God”. endowing natural rights. Deism is however a Christian heresy, arising out of Puritanism, as exemplified by the nearly Jewish Newton.
Dean,
Yes, federal judges are most certainly qualified to rule on what constitutes science and religion, hence what is constitutional or not.
The ID advocates from Dover clearly were not so qualified. They were humiliated in court. Their star witness, Behe, who concocted ID and “irreducible complexity” admitted under oath that evolution is a fact. The textbook was copied verbatim from a creationist tract. It was hilarious.
If you think that I have the Bible and Christian theology wrong, please state why. Are you now more qualified to judge that than were Luther and Calvin, founders of Protestant Christianity, and Paul, upon whose letters all Christian theology is based?
Those who are fated to burn eternally are the Satanic liars who preach the false religion of creationism, thus blaspheming God.
Gloateus “Are you now more qualified to judge that than were Luther and Calvin, founders of Protestant Christianity, and Paul, upon whose letters all Christian theology is based?”
Maybe, but it depends on whose judgment actually matters. At the root of Christianity is “Christ” and there’s the only judge that matters. Luther and Calvin, by abandoning the chain of command, had no authority to judge matters of the religion they abandoned; yet as founders of their own, are perfectly qualified to judge that which they have created. Jesus/God is perfectly capable of establishing as many prophets, apostles and so on as are wanted at any time of Earth’s history.
So it is that I am the authority of my beliefs, and you are the authority of your beliefs.
Michael,
We only know Jesus’ words as reported in the Gospels.
The religion of Christianity has a theology based upon Paul’s take on Christ. If not, then what’s the point of the NT after the four gospels?
The founders of Protestantism rebelled against a Church which they felt no longer reflected either the words of Christ or Paul. They had the biblical text to make their case, in both testaments.
Since Roman and Orthodox Catholic Church doctrines embraces evolution, most creationists are Protestant. Hence, they are heretics and blasphemers of God, since their false doctrine requires that He be deceptive, making the universe appear 13.7 billion years old instead of 6000; cruel, for creating such monsters as ichneumon wasps, the larvae of which eat their prey alive from the inside out, and for allowing babies to be born only to suffer horribly, then die, and incompetent, for creating such defective organisms when much better design features would obviously be available.
Gloateus writes “We only know Jesus’ words as reported in the Gospels.”
There is no we. Your gifts or limitations are not my gifts or limitations.
“The religion of Christianity has a theology based upon Paul’s take on Christ. If not, then what’s the point of the NT after the four gospels?”
The same as any of the writings issued by any of the major religions (or even minor ones) to this very day: Managing a church.
Paul was chosen after Jesus’ resurrection; and he was chosen by God and Jesus. Is there any reason to believe God and Jesus cannot choose new apostles; speak to whoever they choose?
“their false doctrine requires that He be deceptive, making the universe appear 13.7 billion years old instead of 6000”
I have similar thoughts about such things. One thing I take on faith since I have no proof is a truth principle of God and the Universe; if a thing seems to be 13 billion years old by all tests we can muster, then it probably is exactly so. If life seems to have evolved, then it is nearly certain that it did so; in fact, it must be so or there is no truth principle, and if there is no truth principle then “all bets are off”; I might have been created three minutes ago complete with memory of the past day’s conversations.
Mr. O’Bryan’s waters, rather than clear, appear a bit murky in my view.
I, for one, demand only the best evidence for those issues related to science, e.g., climate related issues. This is exactly why I deny the arguments regarding AGW. For those things science is ill equipped to address (i.e., whether or not God exists), then I choose to believe what I believe by faith.
Moreover:
“Living your life on faith…means one can be moved from one belief system to another, based on faith and doctrine alone”.
Doesn’t this argument contradict itself in it’s premise? E.g., if I’ve built a belief system on faith alone, requiring no evidence, for what reason would I ever move from my belief system to another?
No. One merely needs to look at the phenomenon of cults and their intersection with religious beliefs. The Mormon church is frequently referred to as a cult even by other Christians. THE LDS church is Christianity no question, but tack on a few more beliefs. Merely a system of control and power for the leaders, in my view.
Climatism-environmentalism (and its underlying alarmism) is merely seeking to be a system of controls and power for the ruling class.
Pathological manifestations of cults can be sene and studied in the JimJones-Guyana tragedy.
What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?
And why couldn’t a faith-based belief be abandoned in favor of another such belief? It happens all the time in genuine, not forced, conversion experiences.
joelobryan August 28, 2017 at 11:01 am
I cannot understand your explanation of your point. You seem to be saying cults are pathological versions of religious beliefs. Is your point: If cults are bad, Christianity must be bad?
Do you believe that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proves democracy is a bad idea?
SR
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 11:10 am
What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?
What of CLAIMS of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief that have been proved to be objectively, demonstrably false? Do they prove atheists aren’t interested in truth?
P.S. Christianity is not PURELY faith based. The faith is that God will continue to be the God he has already shown Himself to be.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 12:15 pm
I don’t know to which supposed false claims of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief you refer.
You’re entitled to your opinion about your religious belief, but it happens to differ from those of Martin Luther and John Calvin, the founders of Protestantism, and with the words of Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Romans, which is definitely by him, unlike so many of the other alleged epistles in the NT attributed to him. So whatever you may call your religion, it isn’t Protestant Christianity.
@Gloateus
“What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?”
Then you aren’t moving from one faith-based belief system to another faith-based belief system. You’re moving from a faith-based belief system to an evidence-based belief system.
Such was not Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise.
“And why couldn’t a faith-based belief be abandoned in favor of another such belief? It happens all the time in genuine, not forced, conversion experiences.
Then it would seem you’ve again moved from a faith-based belief system to an evidence-based belief system, in that your conversion experience would be counted by you as empirical evidence of it’s veracity.
Such was not Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise.
sy computing August 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Nope.
If evidence “prove” your prior belief wrong, but you adopt another equally devoid of evidence, then you’ve moved to another faith-based system.
A conversion experience could be based upon a manifestation, which could be considered “evidence”, such as Paul’s on the road to Damascus, but also could simply result from a change of heart. You might decide that you prefer faith-based Isl@m to faith-based Zoroastrianism, as so many did in 7th century Persia (along with those forced to convert), in the total absence of evidence. Unless you consider the Arab conquest of an ancient civilization weakened by war and internal strife to be evidence.
@Gloateus
“If evidence “prove” your prior belief wrong, but you adopt another equally devoid of evidence, then you’ve moved to another faith-based system.”
But according to you this was true:
“What if incontrovertible physical evidence emerged showing your purely faith-based belief to be objectively, demonstrably false?”
How can “incontrovertible physical evidence” be that and “equally devoid of evidence” at the same time? It would appear a contradiction is derivable from your argument.
“You might decide that you prefer faith-based Isl@m to faith-based Zoroastrianism, as so many did in 7th century Persia (along with those forced to convert), in the total absence of evidence. Unless you consider the Arab conquest of an ancient civilization weakened by war and internal strife to be evidence.”
Have you built a Straw Man? Is the set of all “preferences” now to be included with the set of all “genuine conversions”?
I deny the premise.
Furthermore, are you sure that you, a believer of neither the Islamic nor Zorastrian faiths, are able to declare to those who are that they believe what they do in a “total absence of evidence”?
sy computing August 28, 2017 at 12:56 pm
Dunno why this is so hard. Can you really not imagine a person who has held a totally faith-based belief switching to a different faith-based belief, without any physical evidence in either case?
No straw man. Should be clear that my examples were hypothetical. I don’t need to know whether any one believer thinks that he or she has evidence for his faith, just that it is undeniably theoretically possible for a person to convert from one purely faith-based belief to another blind faith belief.
I’m surprised that you seem to believe that such a conversion isn’t possible and has never in fact occurred.
Stevan,
Your NKorea question on the semantics of a name is an absurd attempt at distraction.
My Mormon Church analogy is apt to what Hayhoe likely envisions for where she would like Evangelical Christianity to move in embracing climate alarmism, sans the hard evidence.
Joseph Smith, the LDS Founder took restorative protestantism and melding it to his claimed visions of meeting with Jesus and God. The Mormons have their own unique books, the Book of Mormon, of which there are 15 books. Smith is referred to as a Prophet in the Mormon Church. His earthly reward was having 40 wives to procreate with.
Evangelical climate prophet Hayhoe is melding evangelical protestantism with her and the climate-environmental pseudoscience. She has 3 Books of Climate Change to refer to, now in its fifth revision as the basis for climate alarmism scripture. (The IPCC ARs: I thru V, in 3 book reports, the WG1, WG2, WG3 Reports). Hayhoe’s earthly rewards are fat NSF support grants on the climate gravy train.
@Gloateus
“Dunno why this is so hard.”
Uh oh! Did I detect a bit of ad hominem added to your shaker of salt? Just kidding around with you Gloateus. 🙂
“Can you really not imagine a person who has held a totally faith-based belief switching to a different faith-based belief, without any physical evidence in either case?”
In my view, “imagining” this or that is for topics dealing with imagination, not reality. Mr. O’ Bryan appeared to be arguing that the reality of the psychological condition of evangelicals was such and so in the real world. I responded with an objection to that argument…and I suspect the objection is quite valid.
For example, my case:
Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear to be totally irrational that I, as a mature, thinking, individual should suddenly tear down my entire belief system I’ve spent not a few years carefully building, reviewing, testing and revising, in favor of another simply on the basis of faith alone. This was Mr. O’ Bryan’s original premise.
I don’t like believing irrational things. It bothers me and I make every effort to avoid the same. Hence, I suspect such a thing would only happen were I to have an experience similar to that of Saul, i.e., seeing Christ on the road to Damascus. But in that case, (i.e., Saul and his experience) I have not abandoned my previous belief system on the basis of faith, I have abandoned it on the basis of undeniable evidence and therefore, Mr. O’ Bryan’s premise is proved false.
“No straw man. Should be clear that my examples were hypothetical. I don’t need to know whether any one believer thinks that he or she has evidence for his faith, just that it is undeniably theoretically possible for a person to convert from one purely faith-based belief to another blind faith belief. ”
For your “hypothetical” examples you appeared to use real-world history??? Which is it? Real or imaginary?
In the real world I would argue that you do need to know what the believer has experienced, else you don’t have an argument valid in the real world. Or if you do, the argument is suspicious and worthy of objection. In fact, the truth of the matter as to the reality of the conversion of the believer would appear to be critical to the premise Mr. O’ Bryan proposed and you are defending.
joelobryan August 28, 2017 at 1:48 pm
I absolutely agree that NKorea is democratic in name only. That is its relevance to your points about the LDS church. At this time the LDS church is Christian in name only. It is the current doctrine that causes Christians to label it as a cult.
The doctrine presented within The Book of Mormon was indeed mostly orthodox Christian doctrine. Its doctrine was never the point of objection. (Smith left Ohio not fleeing religious persecution, but fleeing a warrant for bank fraud.) However, Joseph Smith soon modified his doctrine away from othodoxy. His claim that God is a glorified man, and thus men can become gods, is perhaps the ultimate example of why the LDS church became known as a cult.
When comparing/contrasting between faith based religions today, the abandoned doctrine of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant.
SR
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 12:25 pm
“I don’t know to which supposed false claims of incontrovertible evidence against faith-based belief you refer.”
Gloateus, you weren’t aware that Ernst Haeckel’s theory that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”, backed by fraudulent drawings of fetuses, was presented as proof positive that natural evolution, not God, is the source of life on Earth? 1 example of many.
Since you do not reference any verses within “the words of Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Romans” I cannot tell what your point was. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Just in case, my point for “Christianity is not PURELY faith based.” was that we are not expected to believe in God solely by faith without evidence. God is very willing to present evidence for our consideration:
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.”
SR
Why are my responses in moderation when the posts I am responding to are in plain sight? Please at least attach a reason to the notice “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 3:45 pm
Haeckel’s drawings of embryos (not fetuses) were not exact, but ontogeny does indeed recapitulate phylogeny and evolution is a fact. Embryos do grow and then resorb ancestral structures, such as teeth in birds and tails in apes. Sometimes the process goes awry and humans and other apes are born with tails. To cite but two of countless examples.
Sorry about not citing chapter and verse. I thought that as a Bible-believing Christian, you’d be familiar with the relevant passages:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A21-28&version=NASB
http://biblehub.com/romans/5-1.htm
They are at the core of Protestantism.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 6:36 pm
“Sorry about not citing chapter and verse. I thought that as a Bible-believing Christian, you’d be familiar with the relevant passages:”
It is because I am familiar with the relevant passages that I had to ask which scripture you were thinking supported your response of: ” whatever you may call your religion, it isn’t Protestant Christianity.” to my statements of: “Christianity is not PURELY faith based. The faith is that God will continue to be the God he has already shown Himself to be.” and ” we are not expected to believe in God solely by faith without evidence.”
You cite Romans 3:21-28, and Rom. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
as proof that Christianity IS purely faith based, without any expectation of evidence or reason.
Gloateus, please note the “therefore” in Rom. 5:1. I think Paul is referencing his preceding discussion about Abraham:
Romans 4:20 (NIV) Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
I think Rom.4:20,21 confirms my position on the faith being discussed, not yours. I agree with:
ripshin August 28, 2017 at 11:52 am
“Gloateus,
You appear to be confusing the protestant belief in justification through faith alone (by grace alone) with the general belief in God. The two are distinctly different and there is no “anathema” to an intellectual inquiry into the existence of a creator.”
SR
My thanks to the moderator(s) for allowing this thread on whether Evangelicals are motivated by evidence and reason or simply blind faith.
SR
[snip -getting wildly off topic -mod]
After a friend heard Hayhoe in person and became convinced of CAGW, I watched 7 of Hahoe’s videos. Hayhoe is a skilled, convincing presenter to “evangelical” audiences. She starts by establishing her credentials as a sincere, warm, engaging Christian. Then she carefully and skillfully establishes the authority of science and her credentials as a scientist. She states that “global warming is not a matter of belief—it is about applying our understanding of science to the climate of this planet. The author of Hebrews tells us, ‘faith is … the evidence of things not seen.’ We believe in God through faith. Science, on the other hand, is the evidence of our eyes.” Implication: we are now on the rock solid ground of science, and since she is a scientist you can trust her. She goes on to point out that not only are we working with science, it’s all about physics, the hard core science so there is a double lock on securing truth.
The stage is now set for her presentation. She has her audience in the palm of her hand. Presenting as an evangelical disarms her listeners. They can relax and turn off their critical faculties. Add to that the cloak of science and you can now believe with confidence whatever she tells you. She is going to present the facts and truth about GW since it is all based on science.
Given her emphasis on science, there is a surprising lack of real data in her presentations. For example, she states that GW is increasing the strength of hurricanes without providing any scientific evidence. No graphs showing increasing strength. Instead, she shows dramatic pictures of hurricanes in action…so we take her word for the increasing strength without any data offered to back up the assertion. We are drawn into the story about the plight of the polar bears and disappearing sea ice with pictures. No data, no graphs. No reference to the fact that the population of polar bears has been stable since 1980.
Have any lingering doubts about her position? She highly recommends John Cook’s website. “Don’t take my word for it, go to this website” (scepticalscience.com) as if she is referring you onto an independent source (Cook and Hayhoe have done research together). She notes that the “founder is a fellow believer…” Implication—you can trust everything you see there.
The final plank in her presentation is perhaps the most powerful and troubling of all. If you are still uncertain about the true status of GW, she pulls out her trump card and a slide appears on the screen: “Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused climate change is happening.” The argument from consensus is a powerful means of persuasion for the under informed.
In some of her presentations she will present a slide that shows a bridge with the caption: “97% of engineers agree the bridge ahead will collapse. 3% say not to worry. Would you keep driving?” (Implication: No, that would likely be catastrophic.) The bottom half of the slide states: “We listen to experts. So when 97% of climate scientists agree man-made climate change is real—it’s time to listen.” (Implication: absolutely; not to do so would be catastrophic.) The audience is swept along and fails to see that the 97% quote on AGW has nothing to do with CAGW and of course they are completely unaware that the statistic is fraudulent on several levels.
Hayhoe uses the 97% statistic to justify her refusal to enter into debate with scientists who hold a different view of CAGW. In her keynote address at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby 2015 conference, she explained that to enter into a debate with the other side would give the impression that there is a 50/50 divide in the science when in fact, it is 97% in favor of her position. She takes the high road; she says it would be “morally wrong to engage in a 50/50 debate. Because, I, essentially would be tacitly communicating a lie.” It also effectively protects her from having to defend her position and the 97% statistic against a qualified scientist equipped to present the other side. She points out that one reason the public is so divided on this issue is that “We are being lied to” by a small group of high level scientists who are engaged in a “Climate Cover-up,” in a “Crusade to Deny Global Warming.”
After explaining to my friend why the 97% statistic was meaningless, his support for CAGW melted away.
See how powerful, effective and useful the “97 percent” lie is. It shuts down conversations.
That’s why this lie should be debunked at every opportunity. The real consensus from Cook’s study was 1.6 percent, not 97 percent. If Hayhoe said 1.6 percent of scientists believed humans were causing the climate to change, the listeners would not be very impressed or swayed, would they.
That’s why people like Hayhoe lie and claim it is 97 percent. And she is a liar. She, as much as anyone, knows how those figures were derived. She knows they are f@udulent. It’s not nice to lie to Evangelicals, or anyone else, for that matter. You may run into a problem at the Pearly Gates.
In one of her videos, Hayhoe reports that if you have only 10 seconds with someone, the one thing that will convince them of the seriousness of CC is to tell them that there is a consensus among scientists.
The 97% statistic was the clincher for my friend to win him over to the alarmist position. I wrote a short paper on Cook’s study showing how the 97% statistic was an artifact of his flawed methodology and analysis. While the alarmists like to use this statistic to support their cause, a careful reading of Cook’s article reveals that the 97% statistic has nothing to do with a consensus on how dangerous or how urgent GW is. The view that humans contribute to CC seems to be supported by most skeptics.
Even if the 97% statistic that “humans contribute to GW” was valid and based on sound research, it would be irrelevant to the real debate on GW. Not being a climate scientist and having only seriously studied this area for the last 18 months, it seems to me that the real debate centers around 1) The degree to which human activity contributes to GW; 2) The mechanisms that might be responsible for AGW; 3) Whether or not AGW will be catastrophic; and 4) Can we do anything to reverse the climate forecast of the models. As far as I know, there is little consensus around these issues.
After walking my friend through the problems surrounding the 97% statistic and pointing out the lack of evidence supporting the CAGW theory, that position lost its credibility with him.
Chris, That’s a nice summary of all of Hayhoe’s trickery. The climate priesthood is desperately either ignoring data (lack of increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones) or using Appeal to Authority arguments.
She is a pseudoscientist and needs to be understood as such. The best way to view her is she is a merely a Sunday morning preacher giving sermons on climate salvation and referring to the IPCC climate scriptures..
Good summary. Can I revise Ms Hayhoe’s bridge analogy?
“97% of bridge scientists say this bridge will catastrophically collapse in a few years because humans keep driving on it. This is based on 100+ complex models of bridges. Would you drive over this bridge?” (P.S getting to the other side of the bridge on a daily basis is essential for most of human civilisation)
Then people drive over it anyway, and it doesn’t collapse. Decades later, it still hasn’t collapsed and doesn’t look like it ever will.
Would you still trust those Climate bridge engineers?*
*You later find out it’s not even 97%, and most of those people never mentioned bridges
The engineers ran models which say it collapsed years ago! But there it is!
>>
“97% of engineers agree the bridge ahead will collapse. 3% say not to worry. Would you keep driving?”
<<
It depends on what kind of engineers: bio-engineers–probably yes; civil engineers–maybe not. But in hindsight, I would still like to see their data and models and see if their concern was justified.
Jim
Cult brainwashing techniques are effective on the weak minded? Whodathunk!
Using a warmist technique to make your point? How adorable……
I’ve considered myself to be an “evangelical”, so I’m not sure what the definition here is. I’m also a licensed Geologist in my state, and I consider the “biblical” creation to be more of an allegory than a ‘literal’ story. Parts of the Bible are literal, and other parts are illustrative of a concept (” … our God is a consuming fire … ” would literally mean that He is a blast furnace, or something … ). I consider the Geological Time Scale to be a valid interpretation of what the Earth has been through.
I do not know Ms. Hayhoe’s affiliation, or her beliefs, but if she has transformed humans into gods, who can create and control climate, then she is NOT an ‘evangelical’; she is a humanist and a masquerade of what she proclaims.
My opinion, of course,
Regards to all,
Vlad
The Bible contains some historical material, with spin of course, from about 800 BC. Before that, it’s mythical, then legendary. But, as you say, it’s possible to infer allegorical meaning from myths and legends.
There is however, no actual science in the Bible, no matter how hard one tries to torture, twist and turn the text. Indeed, it’s false religion as well as junk science to try to tease modern science out of biblical passages. And that’s how it has to be, for faith-based theology to work, as noted above.
Augustine of Hippo and even John Calvin himself understood this.
Gloateus August 28, 2017 at 12:00 pm
“There is however, no actual science in the Bible”…
Are you sure about that? What about these:
Job 26:7 (ESV) He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing.
Note the lack of elephants and turtles.
Job 26:10 (ESV) He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness.
This describes the arch of the Earth’s sunrise/sunset line, now known as the terminator, as seen from space. For the edge of shadow to be a circle requires the Earth to be a sphere.
Isaiah 40:22 (ESV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
The Earth is a sphere suspended in space, and the universe is expanding. Sounds like science to me!
Isaiah lived 200 years before Pythagorus and 2600 years before Hubble. Job lived MUCH earlier.Their only source of this scientific knowledge was God.
There is much more science in the Bible but these 3 examples are plenty when only 1 is needed.
SR
Stevan,
Yes, I am positive that there is no science in the Bible. It is entirely a pre-scientific collection of documents. Even the NT, which is a little surprising, given the long Hellenistic cultural period in the Holy Land, during which local people were exposed to pagan science.
In the Bible, Earth is a flat disk or rectangle under a solid dome, surrounded by water, as per Genesis 1, not a sphere suspended in the near vacuum of space. Yet the Temptation of Christ, from which He and the devil could see all the kingdoms of the earth from a high place, clearly shows that gospel writers envisioned an earth as flat as in the OT.
The passage you cite in Job was mysterious until the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. When Alexandrine Jews translated the OT into Greek, the word “zaphon” had come to mean “north”. But in ancient Hebrew it referred to Mt. Zaphon, at the northern end of the Levantine coast, which was the abode of he Canannite storm god Baal Zaphon. What the passage actually says is, “God stretches out Mount Zaphon over the desolate deep, and fixes the earth upon the surface of the waters”.
Job 26:10 does not mean what you have wrongly interpreted it to say. Its correct translation is, “He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness” (NIV, 2017). Compare with Genesis 1:4. That people observed night and day in the western and eastern skies doesn’t mean they understood that earth is a sphere.
Ancient Hebrew had a word for “ball”, and it’s never used to describe earth. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word mistranslated as “circle” is given as “circuit”. In this usage, we have God sitting on the edge of the earth, looking down at people who appear to Him as insects. Even if you mistranslate it as “circle”, then you have a flat disk instead of a sphere. But elsewhere in the Bible, earth has corners, so is rectangular rather than spherical.
http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html
Thus, “the Hebrew word…used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a “circle instrument,” a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.”
The unphysicality of the “stretching out the heavens like a tent” passage prompted to Augustine to write “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, in which he argued that in order to help propagate the faith among educated pagans, Christians should accept that the earth is spherical and not flat, covered by a solid “vault of heaven”, upon which an anthropomorphic God walks, operating the levers of the storehouses of the rain and snow.
Sorry, but it’s simply ludicrous to imagine that stretching out a tent is comparable to the expanding universe. The Bible makes clear that earth is flat, covered by a solid dome, from which hang stars, in danger of falling to earth, that the sun crosses the earth under the dome, then “hurries to the place of his rising”, and that Joshua stopped both the sun and moon in their paths across the vault of heaven. This earth is immobile, supported by pillars, with waters below, above and around it.
The waters above the vault of heaven (firmament) were too much even for John Calvin, who concluded that the Bible was written for uneducated people. Yet today creationists call themselves “Calvinists”.
It is impossible to read modern astronomy into ancient Near Eastern cosmology, and dishonest and blasphemous even to try.
[snip -getting wildly off topic -mod]
Mods:
Sorry. Mistyped my email address here and in previous comment.
My bad.
Left out the underscore.
Gloateus, you seem to be dancing around what I present, looking for a way to misunderstand.
example:
Isaiah 40:22(NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
You say “Sorry, but it’s simply ludicrous to imagine that stretching out a tent is comparable to the expanding universe.” and base this on statements of St. Augustine, who was unaware that the universe is expanding.
I don’t think the text says the heavens are comparable to a tent, but that God stretches out the heavens in the same way that a tent must be stretched out before entering – that is, from a very small volume to a much larger volume. It is the act of stretching that is comparable, not the thing being stretched.
Also, NIV, which you reference, uses the words “He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth”, not “sitting on the edge of the earth” Most translations use “above” and the “circle of the Earth”. Surely, you can see that statements of “people as grasshoppers” and “circle of the Earth” are references to the point of view of the Earth – extreme height, as in from space. I think you must not want to understand. That makes further discussion pointless.
SR
Stevan Reddish August 28, 2017 at 5:54 pm
What part of “tent” do you not get?
In biblical cosmology, the flat earth is covered by a solid vault of various construction, depending upon the passage. In Genesis 1, it’s a firmament, a hard dome hammered out by God himself. The Hebrew word is “raqiya”, an onomatopoetic word similar to English “racket”, ie the sound made by hammering.
In the passage you cite, however, the covering over the earth is likened to a tent. The key word is tent, not the manner in which it is set up.
Nowhere in the Bible is the earth a sphere, as I’ve already said. The Hebrew word which you mistranslate as “circle” doesn’t mean a sphere of even a circle. As noted, elsewhere in the KJV, it’s translated as “circuit”. But its literal meaning is a compass, a device for drawing a circuit or circle.
The plain text meaning of the Bible is unavoidable. It’s the standard Near Eastern cosmology, as detailed in the Book of Enoch, which was so popular with Jesus’ sect the Essenes, but mostly kept out of the Masoretic text because Enoch ascended to heaven as did Jesus.
It’s all right there in Genesis 1, which of course differs irreconcilably with the competing creation myth in Genesis 2. The book begins with a divine wind moving across the preexisting waters. There are water molecules in space, but they are ice, not liquid. Dry land emerges from the waters, which are around, above and below the earth, which elsewhere we learn is immobile and supported by pillars. A solid firmament, the vault of heaven covers the earth like a dome. Night, day and plants are created before the sun, moon and stars.
The sun and moon pass over the earth, entering through doors in the dome. The stars hang from the dome. There are openings in the dome from which God personally sends down precipitation from storehouses. He personally laid the foundations of the immobile earth. I could go on. But the point is that in no way does any of this or other biblical myths, adapted from other Near Eastern cultures, even remotely correspond to physical reality.
There is no science in the Bible and attempts to try to interpret modern science out of it are simply wrong, in theology as well as science.
What, you mean to say that, after setting up a tent, you don’t spend the next 13.7 billion years stretching it to expand it at ever accelerating speed?
That’s what I do.
Not!
I’m a Christian, am I an evangelical? I guess. But I have trouble listening to sermons at church or on the radio because they say things that need correction but of course that never happens. Not Bible facts, I don’t dispute those things, but when they stray into other areas to give us analogies or try to develop logic for what they are saying I am frequently turned off by the fact that the speaker goes on without anyone pointing out the errors in what they are saying. I am an engineer, I am involved in discussions almost everyday where everyone has a voice. Everyone questions what everyone else is saying, for clarity and peer reviewing to vett the information being presented or discussed. So I have difficulty just listening to one person talk on without anyone questioning anything they say. And this drives my wife crazy, that I can’t just listen silently.
As a true evangelical you would have to get used to this process, listening without being able to question anything, and accepting what is being said as true. So it does not surprise me that anyone else who speaks to an evangelical audience through the same type of lecture format, such as a tape recording, would have a good percentage of listeners believe what is being said, because listening and accepting is what evangelicals do.
Um…no. Disagree. Respectfully listen, yes. Consider the point, yes. But do you honestly think your the only one with questions?
I’m with Andrew on this. My wife is driven crazy by me not being able to sit silently through a silly movie (Do cars really fly into the air and burst into flames whenever they collide with something?), so I understand Steve Thayer’s issue. I think most people listening to a sermon are persuaded by the Scripture presented. They know humans are prone to error.
SR
Yikes, man, humans wrote the scriptures. Humans interpret them.
How different is that from a movie script?
Another green doing a study on how to convert the unchurched. Anyone using Cook’s 97% meme except as an example of how to lie with statistics is a zealot or ignorant.
Effective speakers can convince people of stuff?
What a break through!
How does she do in open debate?
“Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants.”
Becoming “aware” of something does not mean you agree with it.
I’m sure Hayhoe’s lecture did not make them aware of the background behind the so-called 97% consensus. Once someone becomes aware of the unscientific methods used to derive the bogus “expert scientific consensus,” it erodes trust in global-warming propaganda instead of increasing it.