I have recently been really impressed by some of the people struggling to reconcile the Word of God with the evidence all around us, which does not seem terribly supportive on its face.
(An excellent example: https://creation.com).
They strike me as some weird mirror of us. I really don't think they're being dishonest.
What they're saying is: "Given that we know that the Bible is true, what's the simplest explanation of the evidence that we see that makes sense?".
I can't refute their arguments, they know more about the relevant disciplines than I do.
But I'm fairly sure that if I did come up with a good objection, they'd respond: "That's a really good point, we accept it, let's work out what sort of explanation does work to both explain the evidence and stay compatible with the Bible."
They're doing excellent work even from our point of view in pointing out holes in our best theories, and challenging us to make our arguments watertight.
That's exactly what I'd be doing if I had a really really high prior on the Bible being true.
Where do they get that prior from? Well, priors are kind of a problem for us as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment