TheVeganAtheist wrote:
How have you come to that conclusion? In what way have you determined the level of ridiculousness?
I could ask you the same, because you made the claim first, but I'll answer.
See the definition of ridiculous:
ri·dic·u·lous adjective \rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\
: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous
ri·dic·u·lous [ri-dik-yuh-luhs]
adjective
1. causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ridiculous
rid·i·cule [rid-i-kyool]
noun
1. speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
verb (used with object), rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing.
2. to deride; make fun of.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ridicule?s=t
rid·i·cule noun \ˈri-də-ˌkyül\
: the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridicule
de·ride [dih-rahyd]
verb (used with object), de·rid·ed, de·rid·ing.
to laugh at in scorn or contempt; scoff or jeer at; mock.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deride?s=t
de·ride verb \di-ˈrīd, dē-\
: to talk or write about (someone or something) in a very critical or insulting way : to say that (someone or something) is ridiculous or has no value
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deride
As you should be able to see, the definition of ridicule reduces to two basic categorical claims, with regards to ridicule/derision:
1. Causing/Arousing
2. Worthy of/Deserving
With regards to the first, you are plainly wrong.
These two notions do not cause or arouse the same amount of ridicule, even with regards to their respective frequency of expression.
The idea that the Bible is literal, there was really a global flood, the Earth is just a couple thousand years old, and there's a grand scientific conspiracy led by Satan to cover up evidence of creation is much more widely and harshly ridiculed -- as a matter of breadth and severity of ridicule.
It makes a larger number of unsubstantiated claims.
It directly rejects science (which is demonstrably right)
It asserts that the Bible is perfect, true, literal- and maintains every claim therein.
...While the other only somewhat dubiously bends the interpretation of the Bible (which has no credibility anyway).
Now, it may be more ridiculed by fundamentalists, because it claims the Bible is mistaken in some places and not perfect -- but are we really judging what's ridiculous based on what fundamentalists ridicule?
With regards to the wider population, these modernized "science-friendly" views are accepted with respect by most Christians even when they don't agree with them because they acknowledge Jesus (which is considered the most important point), held by some 10% or so of them (not the exact views, but some variation thereupon, from which position ridicule is not forthcoming), and much more widely tolerated and ignored by non-Christians because they are not to such a well understood degree contradicting science.
With regards to the scientific and skeptical community, this gulf is even more apparent- while scientists and skeptics strongly distance themselves from young Earth creationism, some actually subscribe to views similar (while almost nobody has an identical view to anybody else) to that which this person articulated themselves-
Kenneth Miller's beliefs about the bible are actually
quite similar in many ways
As to the second matter- of worth of deservedness of ridicule, THAT is a value judgement, which can be duly answered by consequential evaluations of the moral worth of each, respectively.
Do you really think questioning the credibility of the Bible, and bending its words to fit science is more deleterious to the world at large than denying the credibility of science, and trying to distort it to fit Biblical literalism?
Or do you think that somehow Christianity will become more difficult to defeat entirely (if that is your goal) if Christians retreat from Biblical literalism, so it is better to use ridicule more severely in those making an attempt to flee in order to cut off their escape route?
If so, that strikes me as the same kind of reasoning used by some few animal rights activists to fiercely oppose any and all animal welfare- because improving conditions of animals now will make some hypothetical future liberation more difficult.
It's a course of reasoning I don't agree with.
Or is it something else?
Perhaps it's a more deontological claim of falsehood- whereby any falsehood is seen as equally contemptuous, no matter its effect or degree of untruth?
I'll debunk anything you have, but In order to argue against whatever reasoning you may be using to determine that these two things are deserving of equal ridicule, considering breadth and severity, I need to know what that reasoning is.
I can't outline and debunk every possible fallacy you may be making in assigning these things equal value, because potential fallacies are beyond count.
If I haven't already covered it, please justify your claim, and I can debunk it.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:
much less arrogant and more subtle sort that does NOT presume to directly do battle with proven science
less arrogant? They presume the bible doesnt mean what it actually says, and so reinterpret it to say what they want it to say so that it better aligns with the science.
Yes, and?
It's much less arrogant to accept proven science than to reject proven science.
It's much less arrogant to question the infallibility of some ancient scripture that has virtually no credibility anyway than assert said literal infallibility against all evidence.
So, he's stretching some interpretations... of something that has no real scientific evidence one way or another. So what? Only fundamentalists should really care that he's questioning the perfection of the Bible.
It's unlikely that it means that, sure. And maybe it's a little bit ridiculous. But there are orders of magnitude of difference between the two.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:
Especially the bit regarding the genesis account being from the perspective of god from the surface of the planet, and that on day 4 the clouds parted revealing the already formed sun and moon. Ive watched every debate I can find, and Ive never heard anyone argue that before.
Those views don't usually come up in the kind of debates you watch. Scientists are usually only debating Young Earth creationists, and ideas that they consider particularly anti-scientific and dangerous. Hardly anybody cares when somebody comes up with an apparently pro-science idea that conflicts with the Bible.
If you want to see views like these represented in debate format, you have to watch more Christian on Christian debates.
And even then, you won't usually see the conservatives ridiculing the liberal interpretations.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:
I've seen many, and they do talk about a local flood, but not anyone Ive seen argues that the scribes copied the bible wrong and put in their wrong interpretation of it being a global flood.
It... usually goes without saying. How else would it get in there?
There's a lot of stuff like this out there too:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood
In terms of web hits, arguments against a global flood float to the top. There are a number of explanations for the text itself, from mistranslation, to mistakes, to misinterpretations.
Those documentaries about the "local flood" are already assuming an audience of mostly non-literalist Christians who are open to the idea.
TheVeganAtheist wrote:
This view accounts for maybe 10% of Christians
Id like to see where you came up with that percentage, relating specifically to the genesis account mentioned above.
Specifically?
I'm not sure what you want.
You'd be hard pressed to find
two Christians who agree exactly on every point. It's this kind of "make the bible fit science" reasoning I'm talking about. And that number applies conservatively to the local flood ideas, but similar reasoning is used to justify genesis (when they are even familiar with Genesis, which many Christians are not).
Most commonly, you'll see that they'll say that a day isn't a literal day, but it's an age, or God's work days (spaced out), or there's a gap between the two genesis accounts and they represent two events, a the whole thing is topically organized revelation to a human (over several days), or something else. But most generally, that these are ways of explaining things to ancient peoples, so they're not so exact.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... l-or-local
It's actually pretty painful to read or watch Christians argue with each other about these things, but they take it as if it's a serious matter to discuss, and there's a sizable population of Christians who advocate the view of a local flood.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three ... d-god.aspx
28% believe the bible is the inspired word of God and is literal/perfect.
vs.
47% believe it is the inspired word of God, and is more figurative, subject to interpretation. (like this apologist), non-literal, and not necessarily perfect.
The survey isn't really great, because it's not so much of a Binary, and interpretations of each story vary, but it is at least marginally informative.
76% are Christians- so that's either polling error, or 1% of Christians think the Bible is mythology, fables, etc.
However, more specifically regarding Noah's Arc story, other sources suggest that nearly 60% of Americans think it's a literal, global flood.
Now, I don't know the exact distribution of that number, but I'd guess they lean more on the literalists.
That's some 16% of Christians, who believe in the Local flood account, or no flood (but more often a local flood)
I think 10% is a reasonable conservative estimate, given the popularity (among literalists and non-literalists) of the flood account, and the local flood notion.
The same kind of reasoning is broadly applied to every area of the Bible by most of the same people.
E.g. the people who believe in a local flood are also more likely to take a similar approach to genesis, in reconciling it with science.
