Good; then we have no disagreement on that point. The bulk of my remarks were not meant as objections to you in particular, but to a general line of exegesis which tried to preserve the literal accuracy of Biblical events while denying supernatural causality. If that doesn’t apply to you, then there is no need for you to respond.
I don’t care how much it exposes. I’m not trying to hide anything.
The irony in this statement is priceless. Here’s what you’re trying to hide.
I note you have expressed no intention of objecting to the article in a peer reviewed publication.
Incidentally Jerry Coyne hated the fact that the original paper was published in PlosONE, but he does not contest the science.
It’s long, technical, and boring, but the upshot is that high winds, blowing for a sufficiently long period, could have driven shallow waters in the Nile delta back, exposing a reef that was about 2 meters underwater. The exposure could have lasted long enough to permit a “mixed group of people” (aka Israelites) to cross a temporary land bridge. Then, when the winds abated, the waters would rejoin, presumably drowning anyone in pursuit. The paper uses mathematical modeling, hydrology and satellite mapping to show that the exposure of mud flats could have occurred in two locations with 100 km/hr winds.
I was referring to my views regarding the subject we were talking about. You said I had revealed much about my “theological position,” as if you thought I had exposed myself to some danger by doing so. I confirmed that yes, I had been quite forthright about my theological position. We were not talking about my personal life, which is irrelevant to assessing my theological views on how to read the Exodus story.
I find it amusing that one day you accuse me of hiding my theological views, and then the next day you inform me that I have revealed a great deal about my theological views. In any case, it’s clear to me that you don’t understand my theological views, because every time you try to characterize them, you get them wildly wrong.
You have exposed your fundamentalist views once again. The views you keep trying to hide.
It means you’ve slipped up; you concealed your views on one day, and then accidentally revealed them on another day. This isn’t a contradiction to anyone who can understand that someone can do two different things at two different times. I have told you repeatedly that despite your attempts to try to conceal your theological views, your posts repeatedly reveal a persistent strain of fundamentalism.
I said nothing fundamentalist. In fact, I expressed openness to the possibility that the Exodus reports of miracles were downright false. No fundamentalist would concede that as a serious possibility.
I can assure you that no fundamentalist institution would ever hire me. I can further assure you that after conversations about theology I’ve had with fundamentalists, the fundamentalists have started “praying for me.” I think that pretty well tells the story about how “fundamentalist” I am.
It amazes me that you can’t see it.
This is a classic fundamentalist trope; “If it doesn’t mean X, then it must be completely false”.
There are plenty of fundamentalists who won’t hire other fundamentalists.
There are plenty of fundamentalists who pray for other fundamentalists.
You must have weird fundamentalists in Australia. (But I guess everything’s upside down there…)
Trouble is that could be anything - or everything - within or beyond imagination. It could even be beyond our ability to detect. I don’t think we can classify such events, but only consider them after the event occurs.
I have no qualms about potentially abusing the math…
Ok, now I’m having regrets…
I would note that if that explained the story, calling that “crossing the Red Sea” would be egregious press release hype.
I would also note that since there is no evidence whatsoever that this supposed event ever happened, there is no real need to explain how it did.
I think that perhaps miracles can generally only be recognized, not analyzed to any great extent. We try to to define them, classify them, explain them, or prove them, but they seem to elude theorizing. Science can’t tell us much about miracles, by definition. God isn’t a variable we can control, miracles are generally considered one-off acts of will, not beholden to physical causality.
Are you currently employed by a non-fundamentalist institution then? If not, what’s your point?
He does have a providential M.O. that is detectable in the lives of his people. Not so much in providentially guided evolution.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of a fundamentalist institution. Nor would I want to be. Nor would any such institution want me as an employee.
My question had nothing to do with a fundamentalist institution.
My fault for overly fast reading; I missed the prefix “non.” But by the employment of simple logic you can convert my answer to the form you want. The negation of “Not-X” is “X.” So any work I do now, or have done in the past, necessarily is or has been (negating “fundamentalist institutions”) for non-fundamentalist institutions.
No, you’re only reading what you want to see. My question is limited by “currently.”
Are you currently employed by a non-fundamentalist institution then? If not, what’s your point?
What I’m doing currently is irrelevant, since I’ve indicated that it’s not working for a fundamentalist institution, which is all that is relevant to my original point made to Burke. And when you used to write under pseudonyms yourself, you refused to identify your employer even in the broadest terms (wouldn’t even say whether or not you held a faculty appointment anywhere), so it takes a lot of chutzpah for you to expect me to part with similar information.
My point, as should have been obvious, was that Burke’s claim that I am a fundamentalist cannot explain why fundamentalists wouldn’t even look at me sideways for any employment in any institution that they controlled. In fact, just about every fundamentalist I’ve ever met seemed pretty much convinced that not only I wasn’t a fundamentalist, but wasn’t even a Christian. So how is that people who know me personally are quite sure I’m not a fundamentalist, whereas Burke, who has never met me, is sure? Go figure. But anyhow, I am not going to answer any more absurd charges about being a fundamentalist on these threads, and will only touch on the subject under my new column on fundamentalism, which you can have a look at.