Does Christian apologetics encourage people to be dishonest ?

[RedTagAlan]

I think it does, certainly the US version anyway.

Apologetics trains people to ignore scientific evidence presented to them. To handwave it away, and to make contorted non logical arguments in support of their belief in the Bible. Because the Bible can't be wrong.

An example here.

Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood | Answers in Genesis

"Fossils are one of the best evidences of a global flood, especially where many fossils are found. For example, we don’t find marine creatures, such as fish, clams, and corals, buried and fossilized on the sea floor where they once lived. Instead, we find most of them buried in sedimentary rocks on the continents, even on high mountains. For that to happen, the ocean waters had to totally flood the continents. And that’s exactly what the Bible describes during the global flood."

The above quote from that site was written by a Dr Andrew Snelling. Who has a PHD in..... geology. Please read the article to get the full gist. Almost every logical fallacy is in there, including outright dishonesty.

This is a big industry, with colleges and university courses etc, and I think that ironically, teaching people to ignore evidence, and to use dishonest debate methods, is destructive to society. Because it teaches people to lie in support of their theology, and perhaps more importantly, it teaches them to ignore political lies at election time, and to vote for the candidate who says "God".

What do folk think ? Agree or disagree?

Except of course the whole concept of evolution is about random changes. Evolution is well understood and explained. The way covid evolved for example. And abiogenesis is a separate field from evolution, And as a PP said, we are on our way to understanding a mechanism for that.

Why would you not trust what society tells us ? I would rather trust a collective of scientists over a bunch of preachers. What diseases have churches cured ?

I'm not religious in the slightest but I don't think it's correct to suggest there is absolutely no evidence of a huge flood eons ago.
Noah's flood isn't the only 'flood myth' and I think there is an argument to suggest that these various myths sprung from a true event, stories of which were passed down orally through generations.
The bible (and other religious texts) often have elements of truth in them, just spun to suggest insert deity here caused it.
Because our knowledge of pre-history is so small, and current evidence is patchy and inconclusive, this allows people to spin arguments to suit their own agendas or beliefs.

with the origins of humans, if we were made from another creature similar to how other humans make genetic creatures etc then there hardly going to say very early humans are made by x, plus even if they did at the time the legends could have been forgetten,

you say about beliving well at one point many people belived the earth was at the center of the universe and that was considered true,

so overall what scientists say is true today can be different tomorrow

I totally get your point and see what you mean.

I think there is a line between honesty and dishonesty on this. Where that line is I don't know. I would say a Dr of Geology ignoring known and logical fact and knowingly misrepresenting it is dishonest. A vicar teaching people how he reconciles the gospel differences is not.

Quote : "so overall what scientists say is true today can be different tomorrow".

And that is exactly how science works, and is supposed to work.

Incidentally, this is one of the big things that Christian apologetics teaches. It teaches people to use whatabotism over changing science to dismiss science, and instead to trust a collection of iron age scrolls. They misrepresent the scientific model.

For example, a common apologetic argument is "Whatabout Newtonian physics? That was proven wrong by Einstein, therefore science is wrong, so trust the Bible"

But that statement is wrong. Eistein expanded physics, and Newtonian physics is ( or is it are ?) still true. It was their range of application that was slightly reduced, but only for specific cases. For example, a rocket carrying a GPS satellite into space uses Newtonian physics, but the GPS system is designed using Elsteins relativity.

They also misrepresent the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe is always expanding. They say that if entropy is "confusion and chaos" then a human body breaks the rule because our cells are ordered and organized. Therefore science wrong, and God made us. That is a wrong argument, because the law is that the Entropy of the UNIVERSE is always expanding. They are applying it to a very limited reference frame. They are dishonestly representing it.

This is actually a crux of my argument I suppose. Because once you go beyond an argument of incredulity fallacy at a certain level, then one does pretty much need an understanding of what one is arguing against. So it is dishonest IMO.

Yup. Sciences and societies change as knowledge grows. The bible doesn't change because it's stuck in the 6th century. Apologetics is all about retrofitting current knowledge to iron-age standards.

Imagine bringing a man from 550 AD into your home. Ask him to describe your kitchen taps, your heating, your cooker, washing machine, TV and cellphone, etc. Get his comments on your lifestyle and the things he sees through your smooth glass windows - the houses, traffic, people.

Are you really going to accept that he's correct about it all??

Oh, and thanks for argument from incredulity, @RedTagAlan. I've been failing to recall the term for days now!

one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false

Yes, people believed that the earth was at the centre of the solar system. Part of the reason that it was such a persistent belief is because religions taught it as The Unbending Truth From God and would not countenance anyone disagreeing.

It was only when the scientific evidence became overwhelming that the religious finally changed their mind and decided that what their religion told them yesterday could be different tomorrow.

but with some sciences thats also been the case where people ridiculed the higgs boson etc and yet years later it proved to exist so in that sense its not that far fetched to think someone or something made humans

"The Higgs Boson (the "God Particle") is a classic example. When Peter Higgs proposed it in 1964, it was so theoretical that many physicists were skeptical. It took nearly 50 years and the construction of the Large Hadron Collider to prove him right."

That's a "no you won't" then.

I present information to you of a clearly dishonest (or in error) line in an apologetics article, and I give a link to an article that clearly gives the information from which can be deduced that line is dishonest ( or in error at best). And you won't comment.

So there is no point walking you through the evidence and explaining why that line is dishonest ( or in error), because your response is " only God knows".

So you won't even entertain the notion that perhaps someone is using your book as part of a scam, because God ?

"It took time for the Higgs boson to be demonstrated therefore God"

I think you need to work on that argument a bit.

very true words i do

I summarised and read what they believe in generally. You should be able to read between the lines. I said the word dishonest cannot be tagged to someone unless you know their thoughts. They may be commited to believing something to be accurate and also unless you know their wording and intent to say they are being dishonest is quite difficult. They also may be speaking about themselves or saying it is real for them or in what terms. Another poster described this to in a slightly different way.

Is this science or religion. Why do you need to modulate others thinking. Countries like Syria and Iran there is persceution and suppresion of the Christian faith. People are not free to believe as they want.

I have stated that nobody knows these details except God, read around that. I've not seen scamming and I did my own research . I think they are mixed up in so many things from the bottom to top and just a believer and the bottom are free to have a faith.

the word dishonest cannot be tagged to someone unless you know their thoughts.

You can construe their thoughts by their actions, can't you? Nobody would be convicted of any crime if the court always had to know their thoughts.

Some thieves don't feel their robberies are crimes if their victims are rich. They think they are honest. I'd say they're very dishonest. Not only are they thieves and liars, they are lying to themselves.

Some people have studied geology to a high level, knowing all the different ways to tell the age of a rock and how the various minerals were formed. If they lie about these things in order to make Genesis seem true, they are dishonest. They may genuinely feel they're lying for a good cause - but this isn't really for them to decide. People deserve the truth from those they trust.

If he said "Those rocks are 3 billion years old, according to measurements, and that diamond is 2 billion years old. Let me tell you how it formed and what forced it up near the surface. It's a magnificent tale of God's immense power!" I'd have more respect for him. It would be honest about geology and about his faith.

He doesn't do that, though. With all his specialist knowledge, he tells the Genesis story while knowing, scientifically, it can't be true. That's dishonest. He goes on to lie about the science, exploiting his qualifications to make his lies more convincing. At this point I don't care whether he's lying to himself or not: his actions are dishonest. He's teaching lies to people who trust his qualifications.

The Young Earth Creatonism group have different beliefs. I read that they or some stem from the Seventh day Adventists.
Some other Christians may have a similar view to but don't tag themselves as such. This group does not appear to own this. That is that there was a global flood. I have stated I think there was a flood, but God knows the extent. People are entitled to have their own views though.
You really have to study the wording what they say and write. If you go to there about page for example if they have one they might they state they believe this and argue therefore. It is not something you can resolve here without more thought. I do not know there activites and am working with what they believe.fitted.

Yup. He says "It's a magnificent tale of God's immense power "

We can maybe perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt, in that when he studied geology we were not sure exactly how Diamonds got to the earths surface.

However, a quick web search, and here we have a popular earth science article 2023. Problem solved.

Mystery of how diamonds reach the Earth’s surface finally solved - Earth.com

Article has all the links needed to examine in detail.

That took me approx 15 seconds to find. Maybe 30 secs to read.

Our good Dr of geology could easily fact check details as he is writing, but it appears he does not? Or is he just being dishonest. Maybe he plans on claiming ignorance if challenged ?

I just checked the dates. The AIG article is 2021. The diamond paper 2023. But AIG still have that claim up. They should update. Given that they have 400 staff, they have the resources. Given the high profile of AIG I am 100% that he will have been challenged. But no update.

One thing for sure though, that any scientist is taught. If we don't know yet, they can't just say...GODDIT.

@Justmerach

Garlicfound has found yet another issue with that AIG paper. It is full to the brim with them. And we have shown how easy it is the debunk the paper.

I don't have a degree in geology. But I have studied materials extensively as an Engineer. And skills are transferrable. Is that not the whole point of education ?

Will you not even concede one iota, just a smidgeon, that perhaps, just perhaps, that the AIG article has errors in it ?

Personally, I don’t see why the Christian faith want to claim science apart from arguing it being not incompatible with some scientific theories. May be they can believe this, but may be should not refer to scientific documents to label something as 100 valid or necessary in the faith. There are many Christians who may believe in the global flood, but do not make claims with scientific evidence for the creation of the world.

Everyone should claim science as it proves evidence of amazing events - we should all learn from it. I love science - it’s something you never stop learning from. It’s the basis of our origins and everything around us.

I meant science is there and this is about religion only and science. Some scientific thought is not incompatible with Christanity or other faiths. I mentioned I did about the dating of rocks in a module at university to argue it is not incompatible with the Christian faith. May be that is how it can be argued. It doesn't necessarily have to go further and some Christians may not know about science and it is not mandated for them. Science on its own is not a problem and learning about it if you want to.

Everyone should be learning about science at school and at home. Science is taught from primary and with the amount of resources available online it’s easy for everyone from children upwards to understand.

I am not disputing that science should be taught. For example the rescurrection or incarnation science does not have an answer for this. It does though not need to justified by scientifc research to be believed. Some older Christians may know little or no science and still believe in their faith. It is not essential for all believers to know about science and have a faith and find the answers through science for their faith to make it valid for them.

Evolution is part of the school curriculum. Schools teach evolution as a comprehensive, evidence-based theory. They teach facts.

Science does have an answer about resurrection - it’s not possible. Ask any doctor.

What they teach in a Catholic faith school for example is not at odds with their faith. I read that Catholic faith schools now teach a theistic form of evolution.. I remember having to do a project on this at school dinosaurs so who knows for sure what was on the syllabus. What in evolution is confirmed today for you.
Still, not all Christians have to know about science theories to have a faith and that is what I wrote.