*sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2015, 08:40 AM
*sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
I was having a discussion with my wife last night and it was nice. We were talking about several things then she said that someone she knows suggested a website that may be helpful. He is a PhD biologist who uses this resource to try and reconcile when the science suggests the biblical accounts are wrong. The website? You probably guessed it. Answers in Genesis.

I am not even sure where to begin to tackle this one with her. I am well aware of AIG, Ham, and his "scientists" but she tends to shut down if the information is too much or she simply doesn't think (or perhaps want) to consider it as a possibility. I know that AIG is a horrible perpetrator of bad science but I am not sure how to even begin to address this without basically saying that these guys are all hacks which I know will piss her off. I know that she would rather me just accept this garbage and not even question it like she does but I just can't. The scientist in me has to be objective and treat their claims with the same vinegar that I would use on someone in my field who claimed that carbon can form 6 bonds. I love her dearly and I really don't want to hurt her. She has told me in the past that it irritates her that I have an answer for everything but she fails to see that the reason that I have an answer is because there is another answer and so far IMHO a better answer than "god did it." Like I am just supposed to not think about an answer she gives (or more appropriately, an answer someone gives her) but just take it and not analyze and evaluate it. This is weighing very heavily on my mind because I don't know how to discuss this with her where she will actually hear a different perspective without hiding in her shell. Any suggestions? Again, I am not expecting her to believe it or anything I would just like for her to send/receive instead of just send.



For a good laugh, here is some of the criteria for being published in their "journal." I was actually rather surprised that they didn't require a statement of faith to publish, although that could be something that they send you later if you submit something.


Quote:By working closely with your editor you will better ensure final acceptance of your paper and
help the ARJ editorial staff in ensuring accurate publication of your paper. Working with your editor builds
an effective partnership whose goal is to ensure that the Creation and Flood model is given the best possible
development by all concerned.

Quote:VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins
debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
Science Fellowship.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
AiG is confirmation bias in action. You could ask her why they seem so convinced that their arguments work so well for christianity, but not any other religion when the arguments would work exactly the same way for judiasm, islam, wiccan, hindu, buddhism, etc.

You could also ask her why a scientist would try to reconcile their faith with their science in the first place. Because either something is science, or it isn't. As Gould put it, science and religion are two non-overlapping magisteria. And that will remain the case as long as religion uses faith as the basis for its belief system.

In the end, you'll likely not be able to say anything that will really matter because if she thinks AiG is credible, then she isn't thinking rationally about any of this.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
09-04-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
I know it offends a lot of people when I say this, but this is why it is a bad idea for skeptics to get involved with religionists in the first place. It gets even worse when raising kids enters the picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Desert Diva's post
09-04-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
(09-04-2015 08:57 AM)Desert Diva Wrote:  I know it offends a lot of people when I say this, but this is why it is a bad idea for skeptics to get involved with religionists in the first place. It gets even worse when raising kids enters the picture.

No offense taken. I wasn't an atheist when we were married almost 12 years ago so that is part of it. She has gone deeper into the rabbit hole whereas I crawled out. I enjoy the view much better up here. I just wish she could look up if only for a brief moment and see the beauty of the world instead of a broken one.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
09-04-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
(09-04-2015 08:57 AM)Desert Diva Wrote:  I know it offends a lot of people when I say this, but this is why it is a bad idea for skeptics to get involved with religionists in the first place. It gets even worse when raising kids enters the picture.

It has worked out fine for me. As a matter of fact, my wife was raised evangelical christian and is now more of an agnostic. (she still called herself a christian up until maybe a year or so ago).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
09-04-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
Sigh! is indeed the response I would have had as well. Is she a creationist? I know she is catholic, but does she believe in evolution? (I went to a catholic school and was taught evolution). Maybe, a frank approach would be the best way forward. Something along the lines of "I am glad that you looked for some science and religion connection, but I have to be honest with you aig is as fundamentalist as an organization comes. They distort, disregard, obfuscate, lie and mislead to make science fit into their nano-sized world view. If you want, we can discuss why this is, but it may ease the pain if you just trust me on this one".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
(09-04-2015 08:57 AM)Desert Diva Wrote:  I know it offends a lot of people when I say this, but this is why it is a bad idea for skeptics to get involved with religionists in the first place. It gets even worse when raising kids enters the picture.

Bah. Been married to a good Catholic girl for 30 years now with 4 grown children. They all turned out to be fine young atheists either in spite of or because of their Catholic upbringing. If differences in metaphysics cause irreparable damage to personal relationships then one of the parties or the other or both are taking their metaphysics far too seriously.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-04-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
(09-04-2015 10:47 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  Sigh! is indeed the response I would have had as well. Is she a creationist? I know she is catholic, but does she believe in evolution? (I went to a catholic school and was taught evolution). Maybe, a frank approach would be the best way forward. Something along the lines of "I am glad that you looked for some science and religion connection, but I have to be honest with you aig is as fundamentalist as an organization comes. They distort, disregard, obfuscate, lie and mislead to make science fit into their nano-sized world view. If you want, we can discuss why this is, but it may ease the pain if you just trust me on this one".

Not sure why you thought she is catholic. Never said she was. I would describe her as an evangelical. She does not subscribe to evolution at all but she really knows almost nothing about it. I have tried to discuss it with her but not too sure whether she really listened or considered it. I am pretty sure she has never thought about it too deeply.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 11:40 AM
*sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
(09-04-2015 11:23 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(09-04-2015 10:47 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  Sigh! is indeed the response I would have had as well. Is she a creationist? I know she is catholic, but does she believe in evolution? (I went to a catholic school and was taught evolution). Maybe, a frank approach would be the best way forward. Something along the lines of "I am glad that you looked for some science and religion connection, but I have to be honest with you aig is as fundamentalist as an organization comes. They distort, disregard, obfuscate, lie and mislead to make science fit into their nano-sized world view. If you want, we can discuss why this is, but it may ease the pain if you just trust me on this one".

Not sure why you thought she is catholic. Never said she was. I would describe her as an evangelical. She does not subscribe to evolution at all but she really knows almost nothing about it. I have tried to discuss it with her but not too sure whether she really listened or considered it. I am pretty sure she has never thought about it too deeply.

Girly means his wife is catholic.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: *sigh* Not sure where to go with this one
I think telling her that it's confirmation bias may not help. First she'd need to understand fully what that means. She'd need a good example. Perhaps if you found an example in something that isn't religion and discussed it casually. Point something out and say "That's not right. That's biased and here's why I think it is. What do you thing?" Get the conversation rolling on something other than religion. Then perhaps it will click in when she sees it in other places and eventually religion too. Just a thought. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Whimsymum's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: