christian@topaz.UUCP (04/15/87)
Around eight or ten years ago, when I was posting articles on the old PLATO network, I used to write what I considered to be authoratative articles on how evolution had occurred (to refute creationists.) But one day, I don't remember whether I read it or if it came up in conversation, I learned that scenarios of the past may be plausible, but ain't necessarily so. The scenarios I'm talking about fit all the evidence, but would were not the only scenarios that could be constructed from that evidence. They were more specific than the evidence supported. A colloquial term for these scenarios is "just-so stories". Most of us have at one time or another read the famous story of how the elephant got its trunk (when a crocodile pulled its nose in an attack.) This story fits well known evidence: elephants have long trunks, and crocodiles do attack and pull animals into the water. Since elephants are the biggest animals around, it makes sense that only elephants could survive to be stretched. To my dismay, I reluctantly concluded that many of my articles were equally fanciful. They fit the well known facts upon which evolution is founded, but they also contained MORE than there was evidence for. I had to face up to the fact that I had just made up that extra. Intellectual honesty demanded that I no longer use my own imaginative inventions as "proof" of what happened. Oh, if someone said "there's no way such-and-such could have happened", then I could honestly trot out my inventions as possible scenarios. But what would happen if I based an argument on my invention as a "fact" and someone asked for my source? Then my "proof" would be exposed as invalid. Since then, I've made a strong effort to desist from just-so stories. Primarily as an effort to avoid deluding myself. Just-so stories are not compelling to the skeptical. They can show that something is plausible, but a skeptic will just turn around and say "what makes you think it really is that way?" and remain unconvinced. Many people recognize the difference between plausibility and proof, even if they don't understand the formal philosophical or logical distinctions. Often when people disbelieve something without being able to say why, this is one of the reasons. But what has all this got to do with Christians? It's not just that the Bible contains a fair number of just-so stories like Genesis and Noah. No, it's that modern supporters of the Bible consider themselves free to construct any just-so story they want. They call it "interpretation". There are many passages in the Bible that it is generally agreed need interpretation, if only because they are insufficiently specific. The logically correct thing to do in these cases would be simply to admit that the Bible is insufficiently specific without further information. But what actually happens is that every little bible-thumper touts his own invented meanings as the gospel truth. That's one of the reasons why there are so incredibly many Christian sects. These just-so stories are one of the common reasons why Christians are frequently frustrated by the "stubborness" of skeptics. For example: In article <10734@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> (Steven E. Rice) writes: > When the objection is answered, rather than recognizing the answer as a > piece of data that should be used to evaluate his own position, > he [a disbeliever] simply finds another "error" in the Bible and repeats > his original claims about the Bible's lack of trustworthiness. Needless > to say, this is intellectual dishonesty! Steve here is referring to the rebuttal to Vasu Murty's list of contradictions in the Bible. Brief review of the "resolutions" of these contradictions shows that almost all of them depend on just-so stories of extremely dubious authority. For example, consider the two differing genealogies of Jesus. The common "resolution" is that one is of biological parentage, while the other is of inheritance. But the fact is, that no matter how plausible that "resolution" may be, that information is not anywhere to be found. There is only one reason to choose that just-so story over the alternative (that the Bible is in error): belief that the Bible is inerrant. The only legitimate statement that can be made is that the Bible is insufficiently complete to be identified as inerrant. > But the most important thing to notice is the pattern -- over and over, what > was claimed to be false is found to be true. Unfortunately, over and over, > those who raised the objections simply moved on to new complaints. This is hardly surprising: a just-so story that may satisfy a believer won't satisfy a skeptic. The skeptic is faced with believers who choose their own just-so stories (rather than stories that would leave the Bible in error) because they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Then these same believers claim they have proven the bible is inerrant. Proof by assuming their conclusion: circularity at its best. -- "Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh