Quote of the Day (Bob Cargill)

“The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. Note that this does not mean all of the claims made in the Bible are false (or true for that matter); I am dealing here only with the biblical stories of the flood. (Also understand that the “slippery slope” claim of “all of the Bible is true or none of it is true” is simply an unnecessary rhetorical device designed to keep readers from doing precisely what scholars do every day: analyze each claim in the Bible on a case-by-case basis. It is not necessary to accept an “all or none” stance towards the Bible.)”

"That's a good point. But also, there's strong evidence that if there is a designer, ..."

Deceitful Design
"Germans who recognised that the war was lost were primarily concerned to be occupied or ..."

Conflict among Fallible Humans
"Of course the definition matters. But unless God is defined to include everything that exists ..."

Conflict among Fallible Humans
"The self is just the brain, which is a physical entity, so I think it ..."

Blade Runner 2049 and Philosophy #CFP

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Unfortunately, Cargill is still enabling biblical authority/inspiration. I understand what he's trying to do. But it bothers me that bible scholars feel the need to enable those who need to believe in inspiration. Why can't he just say the flood didn't happen, period. Why even talk about how this doesn't negate the authority of scripture, etc.?

  • I just had Blogger fail to save my comment. Blogger has been really buggy lately, asking for login details twice when commenting and things like that. Has anyone else noticed such things?Anyway, to try to repeat my comment but more briefly, I think Bob's approach is good pedagogy. If you present "just the facts" (whether such a value-free presentation is possible is itself open to question, but I'll bracket that out for the moment), you may not be relating the material presented to where your audience is coming from. And as a result, they may just ignore, or in other ways fail to or refuse to learn. It is comparable to the way some students who have been indoctrinated with young-earth creationism pass classes on evolution by regurgitating facts, but insulate their worldview from the knowledge because they "know" (on the basis of misinformation presented to them) that evolution is wrong. And unless the claims of young-earth creationism are addressed, including claims related to the Bible, then the data about biology may never be understood, much less accepted.And so let me ask you, do you believe that we should ignore where our audience/students are coming from when trying to educate them? I know that this is indeed a classic model of pedagogy – just present your information and argument, and the students must cope as best they can. But even if this approach has a long pedigree, I am not certain that it is particularly effective.Returning finally to the topic I bracketed out earlier, isn't even our shared conviction that critically exmining religion is not only an appropriate endeavor but a good thing a value judgment. Is there any way we can prove it to be "objectively true"? If not, then I suspect that not only may it be pedagogically unhelpful to try to bracket out questions about authority and values, it may in fact turn out not to be possible! 🙂