Burnedout

Christian Research Institute is at it again, trying to explain away Ex-Christians

Recommended Posts

Burnedout    3,709
Quote

 

“EX-CHRISTIANS” AND HOMESPUN ATHEIST “APOLOGETICS”

 

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA244.pdf 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



Yeah that's been out for a while.

 

I read it some time ago and was going to do a full review of it in my fledgling atheist days.... then just never got around to it :D

 

"It is regrettable that Lenaire and Tarico are representative of a growing breed of “fundamentalist atheist”

that is taking advantage of self-publishing technologies to advertise their discontent."

 

As opposed to fundamental Christians taking advantage of self publishing technologies to advertise their disdain for science and promote beliefs of holy books?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnedout    3,709

As for me, I like that people of all sides use self-publishing to put their stuff out there.  I hate gate keepers who want to stifle anyone.  It my estimation, gate keepers are the big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

As for me, I like that people of all sides use self-publishing to put their stuff out there.  I hate gate keepers who want to stifle anyone.  It my estimation, gate keepers are the big problem.

 

I'd largely tend to agree with you except you have tended to use that term in specific situations on this forum wherein someone will point out the flaws of arguments to which you've replied that they are being gate keepers. I disagree with that line of thinking.

 

I agree that who ever should be able to publish whatever, notwithstanding any particular organisations criteria for publishing, however I see no problem with whoever else coming along and pointing out what might be wrong with said publishing.

 

If you go and post a whole lot of creationist rubbish I respect your right to do so, but I will point out why it is rubbish. In your view I'm being something of a gate keeper because I'm not letting people just read and make up their own minds right? Except that I am, I'm just raising their awareness as to why they might not want to accept what is posted as true and accurate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnedout    3,709
7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I'd largely tend to agree with you except you have tended to use that term in specific situations on this forum wherein someone will point out the flaws of arguments to which you've replied that they are being gate keepers. I disagree with that line of thinking.

 

I agree that who ever should be able to publish whatever, notwithstanding any particular organisations criteria for publishing, however I see no problem with whoever else coming along and pointing out what might be wrong with said publishing.

 

If you go and post a whole lot of creationist rubbish I respect your right to do so, but I will point out why it is rubbish. In your view I'm being something of a gate keeper because I'm not letting people just read and make up their own minds right? Except that I am, I'm just raising their awareness as to why they might not want to accept what is posted as true and accurate.

 

 

 

My big problem is with publishers and individuals who think they are the ones self appointed to decide what everyone thinks.  I lump the media, as well.  What do we need publshers for in the day of internet access?  The publishers are a dinosaur.  They are arrogant and pretentious and the only reason some are still alive is because it is illegal to kill them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
♦ ficino ♦    1,697

LF's burden topic comes up here. A paper published in an international, scholarly journal is going to start out with more cred in my eyes something self-published, because we don't know that any referee process occurred with the self-published stuff.

 

BO, I'm guessing that you may want to push back against scholarly peer review processes. As far as I can see, they're the best we've got. It doesn't follow that some external reviewers don't do bad jobs. It also doesn't follow that they subscribe to the author's conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MOHO    591

From the book review

 

"It is clear, however, that their life experiences provided inadequate nourishment to maintain a sound Christian faith."

 

Loosely translated - they READ the bible, as well as secular material, and made their own decision base on the evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
midniterider    3,180
8 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

My big problem is with publishers and individuals who think they are the ones self appointed to decide what everyone thinks.  I lump the media, as well.  What do we need publshers for in the day of internet access?  The publishers are a dinosaur.  They are arrogant and pretentious and the only reason some are still alive is because it is illegal to kill them. 

 

It's like telling me who the handful of pop artists shall be on the radio. Dinosaur paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnedout    3,709
11 hours ago, ficino said:

LF's burden topic comes up here. A paper published in an international, scholarly journal is going to start out with more cred in my eyes something self-published, because we don't know that any referee process occurred with the self-published stuff.

 

BO, I'm guessing that you may want to push back against scholarly peer review processes. As far as I can see, they're the best we've got. It doesn't follow that some external reviewers don't do bad jobs. It also doesn't follow that they subscribe to the author's conclusions.

 

Ficino,

 

First...please don't take my rant as a personal attack because it is not.  I have my own rip on this whole thing.  BTW...I know personally some people in academia.  They are the ones who enlighted me on the process.  

 

Second, I have learned and there is some evidence, even if it is not accepted, that much, perhaps most of the monkey business involving the peer review process is about a persuit of grant money.  It is as viscious as mafia dons protecting their turf.  Depending upon which field it is, the stakes run very high.  

 

Third, I have stated it before, but I will say it again,.  My health could have been harmed if I listened to the peer-reviewd protocols of the medical profession on my own diabetes.  I have used a method that I was initially warned with stern tones against, but it works and works well.  Thus, I listen to what is published about the same way I might read a news story.  I consider some or most of it as fake news or manipulated info.  Sorry, I am just very jaded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
♦ ficino ♦    1,697
19 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Ficino,

 

First...please don't take my rant as a personal attack because it is not.  I have my own rip on this whole thing.  BTW...I know personally some people in academia.  They are the ones who enlighted me on the process.  

 

Second, I have learned and there is some evidence, even if it is not accepted, that much, perhaps most of the monkey business involving the peer review process is about a persuit of grant money.  It is as viscious as mafia dons protecting their turf.  Depending upon which field it is, the stakes run very high.  

 

Third, I have stated it before, but I will say it again,.  My health could have been harmed if I listened to the peer-reviewd protocols of the medical profession on my own diabetes.  I have used a method that I was initially warned with stern tones against, but it works and works well.  Thus, I listen to what is published about the same way I might read a news story.  I consider some or most of it as fake news or manipulated info.  Sorry, I am just very jaded. 

I've been an external reviewer for one book and a number of articles in a range of publications. But my field is Classics, where grant money is scant. maybe I would have been on the take had I been in, say, mining.

 

I am glad that you got a handle on the diabetes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
midniterider    3,180
11 hours ago, MOHO said:

From the book review

 

"It is clear, however, that their life experiences provided inadequate nourishment to maintain a sound Christian faith."

 

Loosely translated - they READ the bible, as well as secular material, and made their own decision base on the evidence.

 

I thought God provided the nourishment. Guess not.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Burnedout said:

...most of the monkey business involving the peer review process is about a persuit of grant money.  It is as viscious as mafia dons protecting their turf.  Depending upon which field it is, the stakes run very high.  

 

...My health could have been harmed if I listened to the peer-reviewd protocols of the medical profession on my own diabetes.

Hi BO and Ficino!

 

I am an academic. I can assure you the peer review system is flawed, if not broken. It is well-intentioned on the ground, but there are many problems with it and with the entire academic publishing industry as a whole. That said, it's the best method we've got at this time to keep un-truths from ending up in circulation and informing patient care. I'd still value peer review over self-publication. I also make sure the article I'm reading wasn't sponsored by a proponent of the topic (such as a drug study being promoted by a pharmaceutical company). There are ways of teasing apart what an article says and critically analyzing its components. Certainly, garbage still gets published...

 

And BO, I too have found conflicting evidence in the academic literature, and I have also been "that" patient who evades the established protocol because the "best evidence" just didn't work for me.

 

These matters make me love science even more!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya lost me at "Christian Research1 Institute".... LOL

 

1Research, in this context, means finding and bending "data" to support their ridiculous notions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Positivist said:

And BO, I too have found conflicting evidence in the academic literature, and I have also been "that" patient who evades the established protocol because the "best evidence" just didn't work for me.

 

We should point out that just because there are outliers, doesn't mean the general advice is wrong on the whole. It just shows how complex biology is and what is sage advice for groups of people might be fatal advice for another person.

 

BO your position is the peer-review system is flawed. Agreed. What would you replace it with to ensure quality of information?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
♦ ficino ♦    1,697

So far, I think about the peer reviewing system that it's like democracy as Winston Churchill talked of it: the worst system except for all the other systems that have been tried.

 

I am vastly grateful for external reviewers.

 

First, because they have challenged my own writing and forced me to come up with something better. I prize those journals, for example, that send the author the reviewers' comments. Two articles I published in European journals of note were each my fourth try ... keep chugging ahead and trying to improve, and one hopes, human knowledge is advanced.

 

Second, because ... what better do we have? "My cousin knows a guy who works with a guy who has equipment in his mother's basement..." OK I exaggerate. But there is a reason, methinks, that some scholars win their peers' approval, if not always of their conclusions, at least of their methodology. And other people don't and fall by the wayside.

 

"Rusticity" in scholarship was not cool even in the eyes of Aristotle. When people from different continents and different historical cultures agree on some finding - say, about meteorology (heh heh) - I consider that pretty fuckin awesome and to be discounted only with distinctly obvious counterevidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnedout    3,709
Quote

 Agreed. What would you replace it with to ensure quality of information?

 

I cannot give a 100% iron clad system, but I can give some general ideas that, along with those of others, could lead to a better system.  

 

1)  I think the journals are an outdated system, not unlike the record labels in the popular music world.  File sharing and the ability to easily hack the system with the modern techonolgy.  I would favor some kind of a system the money donors are unknown to the researchers, but the data is transparent.  The money donors need to be hidden so as to avoid undue influence over the actual research data itself.  And the donors need to be kept from unduly attempting to push an agenda and use manipulated data as a cover.  

 

2) The people who control the oversight need to be transparent as to who they are and what areas they may have to avoid conflict of interest.  

 

3) There needs to be more of an open forum for people with some appearingly off the wall, over turn the cart ideas that may run counter to the conventional wisdom.  

 

4) Researchers and research organizations should have to do what other professions do, raise money.  That may mean hiring marketers of some kind, there are MANY not-for-profits out there that are successful.  Before the days of heavy government funding, there were groups in this country, for example, like the March of Dimes.  They were orignially dedicated to eliminating polio and they were successful.  They then had to find another cause to remain in existence.  If you have heavy government funding, it is at the whim of the political world like it or not and there are those who will put pressure using that funding for political purposes.  

 

Those are admittedly some very very broad brushed thoughts.  This is nowhere NEAR close to anything that would resemble a solution, but at this time, I doubt there are many people who are that much further than my half-assed proposals.  Would it be difficult?  YES.  Is it worth it?  HELL YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChelseaGuy    1
On 9/12/2017 at 3:39 PM, midniterider said:

 

It's like telling me who the handful of pop artists shall be on the radio. Dinosaur paradigm.

 

It seems that people have been using the word "dinosaur" lately as a pejorative for anything that's older, but people still have an attachment too. Since people argue just because something is traditional or even outdated doesn't make something wrong. But I guess a few people here will argue that I should throw traditional methods or seeing the world a certain way out the window because I no longer want to be bounded to a particular religious system.

 

It's not really radio itself that is the problem, but choice on who is heard on the radio has become more narrow and concentrated into the hands of fewer companies. I would be heartbroken if traditional radio as you implied to be talking about, died or became extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
midniterider    3,180
26 minutes ago, ChelseaGuy said:

 

It seems that people have been using the word "dinosaur" lately as a pejorative for anything that's older, but people still have an attachment too. Since people argue just because something is traditional or even outdated doesn't make something wrong. But I guess a few people here will argue that I should throw traditional methods or seeing the world a certain way out the window because I no longer want to be bounded to a particular religious system.

 

It's not really radio itself that is the problem, but choice on who is heard on the radio has become more narrow and concentrated into the hands of fewer companies. I would be heartbroken if traditional radio as you implied to be talking about, died or became extinct.

 

I might listen to traditional FM radio if they had my favorite (yet oddball) genres. FM radio is also good for information on local happenings. But I don't do commercials anymore. Not listening to that. Nor am I listening to DJ jabber.

 

That said, I myself am a dinosaur ham radio operator since 1978 and fluent in Morse Code. Talk about out-of-date. LoL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burnedout said:

4) Researchers and research organizations should have to do what other professions do, raise money. 

 

I am an academic and researcher. Much of my time is spent writing grant applications--which take up to 100+ hours each, and have a 5% chance of being successful (depending on the granting agency, it can be as low as a 0-.5% chance). All of this grant writing takes away from my teaching, scholarship and research time. I work 70 hours per week (paid for 35). I am exhausted. Funding has almost completely dried up and I have been spending my own money to pay research assistants and as such I subsist hand-to-mouth.

 

All this to say: we already (try to) raise money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burnedout    3,709
24 minutes ago, Positivist said:

 

I am an academic and researcher. Much of my time is spent writing grant applications--which take up to 100+ hours each, and have a 5% chance of being successful (depending on the granting agency, it can be as low as a 0-.5% chance). All of this grant writing takes away from my teaching, scholarship and research time. I work 70 hours per week (paid for 35). I am exhausted. Funding has almost completely dried up and I have been spending my own money to pay research assistants and as such I subsist hand-to-mouth.

 

All this to say: we already (try to) raise money.

 

 

What you may want to do is partner with some fund raising entity.  Not saying my suggestion is very detailed but the answer has not yet emerged.  I hate to use a biblical element, but take Moses, he had to have Aaron to speak for him.  The researchers need to do what they do best, but there needs to be more of a team.  The private sector does it all the time.  There should be more not-for-profits in on this.  Not saying it is close to being in place, but again, this is just spit balling and rough ideas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R. S. Martin    619

BO, relax. This is Lee Strobel and J.P. Holding talking. Here’s my research and analysis:

With regards to BO’s OP. I am reading the linked article by Christian Research Institute. They are not only making false accusations/claims about atheists but also other Christians. First of all, I researched the founder, Hank Hanegraaff. In this year (2017) he was diagnosed with cancer and he also left evangelicalism.

Did his diagnosis have anything to do with his leaving? I don’t know. However, I’m thinking if a man who is facing a serious illness, and possibly death, leaves a religion (albeit for a more traditional form of Christianity), perhaps it speaks to a lack of truth in that religion.

Hank Hanegraaff

 

 

 

ARTICLE: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article154030349.html

 

SO-CALLED UNQUALIFIED SOURCES

 

Arthur Walkington Pink 

Other Christians denigrated by the CRI are

 

Arthur Walkington Pink (1 April 1886 – 15 July 1952) was an English Bible teacher who sparked a renewed interest in the exposition of Calvinism. Virtually unknown in his own lifetime, Pink became "one of the most influential evangelical authors in the second half of the twentieth century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pink

 

After reading the Wikipedia article, I conclude that he was as Christian as they come.

 

John Shelby Spong

I listened to a lot of his videos a few years back. He’s all for God’s love. Again, a Christian, though at the opposite end of the spectrum from Pink. He has a divinity degree from Virginia Theological Seminary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

 

SO-CALLED QUALIFIED SOURCE

 

CRI evaluates Burton L. Mack as a qualified source. Here’s Wikipedia:

 

Burton L. Mack is an author and scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament. He is John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.[1] Mack is primarily a scholar of Christian origins, approaching it from the angle of social group formation. Mack's approach is skeptical, and he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history. He sees the gospels more as charter documents of the early Christian movements, not as reliable accounts of the life of Jesushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_L._Mack

 

CONCLUSION

CRI is nitpicking. What they’re looking for in “qualified sources” is biblical scholars. The above, admittedly, do not have PhDs in biblical studies.

 

Gold!

By digging, then digging some more, then really digging, I found pure gold! This article was written by J.P. (James Patrick) Holding of Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry. http://www.tektonics.org/JP-Holding.html

 

“Lee Strobel [recommended J.P. Holding’s ministry] on The Bible Answerman in December, 2001” http://www.tektonics.org/jpholding.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R S Martin makes the interesting point that CRI and also Answer in Genesis spend just as much time attacking other 'not true Christians' as they do evolution.

 

Creationists not only deny science, they think that their interpretation of the bible is the only correct one and everyone who disagrees is not a true Christian.

 

This is in contrast to many of the other denominations who have been softening their doctrinal differences and stances over the years. Oh they are still there, but often the view is that there are multiple truths to being saved. (Despite the logical inconstancies of competing doctrines ) However with literalists its their way or the highway. Creation was 6000 years ago in 6 day, homosexuality is a sin and Armageddon is coming and ya'll gonna burn.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R. S. Martin    619

Thanks, LF. One thing I forgot to mention. While J.P. Holding is ranting about unqualified sources, he himself has zero biblical scholarship training. His training is a Bachelor of Science. How presumptuous to classify divinity graduates and lifelong pastors as unqualified! Like William Lane Craig, he's pretending to be something he's not--an authentic and genuine person. I can't stand the type. They discredit themselves and are beneath contempt so far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now