How far should we go in indulging the advocacy of nonsense?

@AllenWitmerMiller, at Peaceful Science we are not looking for cheap and counterfeit peace, as if “Minnesota nice” and “politeness” and “reducing conflict” are the end goal.

We seek quite the opposite. We believe that entering into dialogue means entering into conflict. We see here all the time that engaging real issues increases conflict in the short term. True dialogue exposes error, dishonesty and immorality. Those committed to error, dishonesty, or immorality will ferociously despise us and work hard to create conflict here. These things stand in the way of peace.

Seeking peace requires entering into conflict. We enter in, because the conflict of honest dialogue is the only way to clean house.

I will point out too that we need not agree to ultimately find peace. We do have to be honest. When dishonesty is is discerned, it should be directly called into account. @jammycakes has the right idea: The 10 Best Evidences for a Young Earth. If you watch me, also, I am constantly pressing on people to see what they understand. If they have the wrong internal view, they are not dishonest, and just confused and might respond to education. However, at times true motives are revealed in dialogue, and and we should directly press people to be honest.

I’m very driven by viritue ethics here.

YECs need not answer for Ken Ham, AIG, or Nathanel Jeansons. They do, however, have to answer for themselves.

ID proponents need not answer for DI, Axe, Behe, or others. I’m increasingly annoyed by blanked defenses of ID. They do, however, have to answer for themselves.

TE/EC need not answer for BioLogos, Venema, Lamaroux, or Deb Haarsma. They do, however, have to answer for themselves.

Each person has a different level of comprehension, and we can and should expect them to be truthful to their honest understanding. If they are close minded, I expect honesty here too.

As should be obvious @AllenWitmerMiller, this is not an easy cheap peace. It will create a great deal of conflict. It is, however, built on a fair standard that does not require agreement.

1 Like