I like Michael Heiser’s work on ANE contexts. He posted on this subject of literal interpretations here Interpreting Genesis 1: Who's the Literalist Now? - Dr. Michael Heiser
The lecture he references here is over at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSG2s17VooQ it is worth watching to see what “literalism” could lead to. Note, I am uncomfortable with the overly simplistic label “literalism”
3 Likes
There are many recorded instances that prove your above statements here very much incorrect. It is possible to lose tenure, and it has happened to people as a consequence for being seen as friendly to creationism. This was documented in Expelled. Much of what happens is part of “unwritten rules”, not explicit statements. This, too, has been documented.
You are not the first person I have encountered to be uncomfortably with that label, depending on the views of individuals it could mean literally anything! 
Disclaimer: That was intended as a joke.
I feel the need to direct you towards this book for the crime of punning
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/God_s_Revenge_Against_Punning_Shewing_th.html?id=EmaUMwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y&fbclid=IwAR2Pbv0HUtDJgl-RRXyuuS0vSB0VXtY8IrBfEsOd-T8MAZhoWAUM3HMicdM
1 Like
Mea Culpa!
I would agree. I would call Flat Earth a club of like-minded people, a swarm of moths around the same light bulb.
That was propaganda. The actual details of those cases don’t support your claims. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of lack of production, not because of his views on creationism or ID.
2 Likes
“Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted.”
-Fred Allen
1 Like
Reminds me of a great pun I hard on some radio snippet of an old Allen’s Alley broadcast.
Who’s there?
Noel Coward.
Noel Coward who?
(singing) I’m a Noel Coward hand, from the Rio Grande…
1 Like
When I used to be really into reading ID stuff 15 years back I bought loads of books on this. I remember reading about Expelled and feeling it was a really important expose
Regardless of whether it is fairly representing the cases (which I can’t comment on, but suspect you may be correct for at least some of them), one major issue is the possibility of subjectively inflating the number of instances in ones mind. Due to the fact that you have an interest in a subject, it can be easy to see it as a large scale issue without really factoring in what a small number of cases it actually represents.
I think that this is how some flat eathers feel. They see their movement growing, and they are heavily engaged in that bubble of people so they feel that the actual proportion of proponents is much larger than it is.
Of course, I could just be talking nonsense 
1 Like
How could it possibly grow, it is flat. Bahahaha
Does it grow sideways…hey, are there any flat-earth realtors out there that can sell me something on the edge…I’ll pay an extra $1M. Needs to have a great view of the vastness of space that extends beyond the flat edge, maybe a waterfall into space or something cool I can show off to my many friends that are also flat-earthers.
I don’t see how anyone can live that way, seems psychotic or sociopathic to me. It only takes a first grade level understanding of science to understand that the world is not flat. I don’t get it.
I agree. The argument falls flat on its face.
I am beginning to feel pun-ished for commenting, by all these puns.
On a serious note though, I like the arguments are icebergs analogy. I think for a lot of these people you can knock down arguments, but they feel that there is still a lot of other stuff that hasn’t been dealt with. Due to that, their confidence remains and they doubt the validity of counter arguments / evidence provided.
I try to not assume people are irrational, where possible. People are complicated and emotions, past books read and video’s watched, conversations etc all influence how they receive and deal with information.
It doesn’t mean it is hopeless, just that we need to be careful to recognise it.
The bald chap in the video above has a separate video where he addressed one flat earthier directly. He actually got them to change their mind and started a fruitful discussion with him. Happy o post a link if anyone is interested
Definitely my favorite Fellini film.
1 Like
I say let evolution/Darwinism handle it, can’t be much hope for reproduction.
Neither do I, but I know enough to know that a flat-earther is by definition irrational.
It’s a flat lie…maybe they just feel “cornered”…or do they see an answer on the horizon?..
1 Like
Not trying to be annoying, but what is your definition of irrational?
If it is something like “holding a belief contrary to evidence” then I think we need to look at what they think constitutes evidence. They think they have lots of evidence, and when challenged and shown that an argument is bad they likely hold it less firmly rather than always outright reject it. There could be a number of reasons for this, but I see some of them at play in Christian discourse.
Show that there is a good reason to not believe something, and it sparks a hope that there is a reason that that argument is wrong somehow, or more evidence will arise. This partially comes down to who they believe as an authority and then trust in.
Many probably hold their views due to embarrassment at having to reject their view, some will hold it due to recognition by their group peers.
Not arguing with your point, more than trying to think through the reasons why a debate with a flat earthier may be hard (due to the topic title)
1 Like
If someone said to me, “I don’t believe in gravity,” I wouldn’t waste my time arguing physics, I would point them to High School GED courses.
ir·ra·tion·al
/i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
not logical or reasonable.
We see a lot of physics denial even in current discussions here. Arguing science is the wrong approach IMO. There is a reflex to try to counter bad science arguments with good science, but that wrong because it implies accepting a malformed premise as a point of debate - and that debate leads nowhere. I’ve done this myself, many many times, but I’m learning to steer these discussions toward theology, where they rightfully belong.
And I am not sure I would spend too much time either. But doing it this way isn’t trying to convince them and help them see the truth. They would just approach those sources provided against a set of assumptions
- What about density rather than mass. If the course doesn’t touch that, then they will dismiss the course material as wrong or incomplete.
- Why should they believe the sources you provide. Note that they believe in a conspiracy, of various levels, so pointing to established sources will just feed into that.
Not arguing with you, so much as still trying to work out the best way to engage someone.
I think that a good approach is to pick one small issue and run with it as long as possible. Letting people jump from subject to subject is a lost cause as it becomes circular. Stopping on one small critical element and hammering it as much as possible, taking objections seriously and giving good answers is ideal.
Re. Your definition, that is a handy one, but I am not sure it advances the discussion. I am interested in why they appear irrational, and whether they truly are. As I said, there is a difference between not being rational, and holding to the wrong set of ideas and concepts as evidence which can just be ignorance