You’re right I didn’t answer the question well, sorry.
Because the Holy Spirit dwells in me, I can see when He is dwelling in another person and by what degree.
Okay, so it’s like you have a sort of vision into a different area of the spectrum? Do they glow purple at various intensities when you look at them?
Well, sort of yes to the first question. No to the second.
Two quick comments on themes in the thread as a whole:
-
I’m not sure it matters whether Sanford is dishonest: he’s wrong. He’s misrepresenting the evidence. We don’t have to judge his motivations in order to decide that his conclusions cannot be relied upon, since his premises are incorrect.
-
The issue of Snelling’s fold still elides the issue of whether the layers folded while muddy-soft or while hot-plastic. But geology has many more tools in the box than gross morphology, and a geologist would be able to tell whether the rock had been heated to plasticity in the past. Lay interpretations don’t do justice to the actual knowledge in the scientific field.
7 Likes
Okay good, I kind of expected it wasn’t like that. I was messing with you a bit there.
But I’d still like some clarification.
Do you think it would be fair to say, that another way of describing this thing about “seeing the Holy Spirit” in another person, is that they give the appearance of being totally genuine, and convinced of the truth of what they’re saying? That they really do seem like they are “being real”, that they’re being honest about how they see things when they speak?
How do you he’s wrong if your biases keep you from believing his premises are correct? Have you read the book to even judge it?
I’d edit that:
They are genuine and convinced of the truth of what they’re saying and that they’re being honest about how they see things when they speak.
For example, many Christian conservatives were in the thrall of Jerry Falwell, Jr. I thought he was a scumbag since the day I heard of him and watched how he acted and talked.
Would you not agree that it matters, when the error is pointed out, how he deals with it. Ignoring criticism, is that dishonest? Dealing with criticism and robustly defending it without strawmanning, or promptly acknowledging an error, more honest?
3 Likes
Yes, I agree on that point. Think I made a similar one in a post yesterday. While confusion or an honest error are on the table it’s charitable to assume that’s what’s going on, but once the error has been pointed out, and the response is to double down rather than to correct oneself, dishonesty is what’s happening.
My broader point, though, was about following the evidence. Sanford’s character and truthfulness are between him and his God and the people in his life. It has no impact on me. What I care about is the evidence, and that leads to the conclusion that ‘genetic entropy’ is not a credible claim.
4 Likes
Well you got this part really wrong. It matters immensely if he is being dishonest or not. Are you ready to venture a vote of your own and back it up?
Agreed!
I should have been more specific: his premise where it draws on his interpretation of Kimura is demonstrably wrong. He claims that Kimura says one thing, and goes on to build that into his argument, whereas in fact Kimura says something quite different. That flaw in the foundation of his argument calls into question the validity of the whole structure.
My ‘bias’ is not to conclusions, but the following the evidence where it leads. That can be painful, and has caused me to change my conclusions on numerous occasions. I try really hard not to participate in ‘motivated reasoning’ and confirmation bias, but to take the most clear-eyed possible look at the evidence available.
4 Likes
So have you read the whole book? I’m only on chapter 3.
Please read all my comments on this carefully. You will see the conclusion I come to, and why I do not think Sanford’s personal honesty on this point is consequential for me. From a Christian viewpoint, of course his honesty is consequential for him. But on the evidence, whether he is knowingly lying or genuinely mistaken is irrelevant: he’s wrong.
1 Like
Okay. I think we mean the same thing here then. I wouldn’t use the term “seeing the Holy Spirit” to describe this though (and I wouldn’t have even when I was a Christian). I’d rather say you’re using your human intuition to get a sense of another person’s character and intentions.
It’s hard to fully describe, but it’s that whole interplay between the sort of look they have in their eyes, the specific words they use, how their voice sounds when they speak, where they look when they speak, how they react to other people speaking, body posture and so on. This whole thing together gives a sort of impression of a person, and we all develop this sort of whole demeanor and bodylanguage interpretation ability throughout our lives.
Yes, of course. But there’s more to the Holy Spirit I think in that you can see where sin specifically might be affecting you or them and how their actions flow from their hearts. That’s why if people were holding on to specific political idols they might not see Falwell’s character for what is was because they had the same idols. Same goes for any sin or idols.
I haven’t, although I have read at least one of the papers. I don’t need to have to make the point I am making here, though, since the point is not about the whole book, it is about one very specific point.
The whole ‘have you watched every hour of Jordan Peterson available on YouTube and read every book before you can make any comment’ attitude doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I’ve written 2 books, got 2 more in production, and well over 100 academic papers. Does someone need to have read all that before they can challenge me on one point?
3 Likes
No. But he’s proposing an entirely new model. It’s hard to completely dismiss that unless you’ve studied the data and prove it doesn’t fit the model.
14 posts were split to a new topic: Idols in our Hearts
What data?