Apr 11
theisaacgroupfocus on the family, science, The Truth Project
This is a review and a look at the fifth part of The Truth Project. This section is on science.
I have delayed writing this for several reasons. The first and foremost is that the truth project is frustrating me.
Del Tackett thesis is G-d made the universe and bad people try to say that it is not true. Do not listen to the bad people.
Once again Tackett moves into the us verses them arguments. What is true? Well a person who is philosophically minded will have one answer whereas the (evil music here) atheistic god hating scientist has a differing view.
This is where Tackett really runs into problems. He brings up philosophical naturalism. We use philosophy to understand reality. When we use philosophy we have to come the realization that something bigger then myself exists out there in the world. This thing made everything we see. Why do we say this? Because it would be silly say that I found this item and I came to the conclusion that given billions of years and rain and weather gave me this rock.
Of course it would be silly assume that this item, an arrowhead, just sprung into existence. Of course it was man made.
Therefore . . . how silly is it to assume that the next item is just sprung through a pattern of random factories.
After all a giraffe has a complex set vessels that go with the long neck so the head does not pop when it bends down for the drink. Here are some problems with the giraffe.
Which came first?
The long neck or the long legs? Both are needed for balance
The long neck or the long tongue?
The long tongue or the dark tongue?
The complex circulatory system or the long neck?
To give the thousands of generations that would be required to have the long neck to get to the high trees it would have starved. The first long neck giraffe would have popped its head at the first drink.
Philosophical naturalism can answer these question easily. However, Scientific naturalism cannot answer these questions.
Scientific naturalism is that we can only comment on what we can see and observe. This is most of science. Hence, science only concerns itself with what is, not what maybe.
Tackett’s other big idea is that Darwin has influenced everything. To this I agree. Darwin has influenced just about every field of study. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not. However, there are questions by some about ditching Darwin because of the problems with Darwin.
The largest hole in Tackett’s approach is that all he says is evolution is wrong. Not so much why creation is right. Not to mention, Tackett never give scientific proof for his reasons, on a section of science.
In conclusion: Tackett again messes up with philosophical and scientific naturalism by overlapping the two. Second, the us against them is everywhere. Lastly, he does nothing to prove from a scientific basis that evolution is wrong.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Science, Church, Philosophy
Feb 24
theisaacgroupfocus on the family, History, The Truth Project
This is part four of my critique and review of The Truth Project. This is part five of the Truth Project which deals with History. As it turns out history is one of my prime subjects.
I wonder sometime where I start on these commentaries. As one of my favorite quotes says,
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. ‘Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?’ he asked.
‘Begin at the beginning,’ the King said gravely, ‘and go on till you come to the end: then stop.’ – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
This week, Dr. Del Tackett, DM (Doctor of Management, Colorado Technical University) looks at history.
Let me say that this will seem like some serious nitpicking on certain items. To a point I agree. However, one of my problems that I have is that of believability. If there is a subject which I know something about, as an example, history, Christianity, Bible, theology, Judaism, Biblical languages, as well as a few other subjects, and you are wrong on something I know, why should I trust you in something else.
As far as I am concerned The Truth Project has a higher standard of burden based on their claims of presenting truth and defining truth for Christianity, or at least evangelical Christianity. I consider the same burden for all, including myself. I try to be extremely accurate and mostly fair in all my studies and critique. I have to confess that I sometimes I do go over the top.
Now that I have set the burden high for myself, I shall proceed.
Dr. Tackett looks at the perception of things through numbers in particular 911. This is a good demonstration of how things change. He also brings out the bogeyman of Darwin.
The first thing that screamed out at me was slide number 12. This slide talks about misusing history. The quote on the slide is “Whether her book, is true, I’ don’t care . . .” My note on this was, one professor? What kind (of professor)? What else was said?
In the group we had afterward, I asked the question is this indicative of historians? Is it one? As usual was kicked down by feel goodism and not by truth. My question was dismissed as obvious there are many historians who feel this way. Being a historian I questioned the comment. So now, let’s look at the reality.
Agosin, Marjorie (1999). Cited in Robin Wilson, Anthropologist challenges veracity of multicultural icon. Chronicle of Higher Education (Online). [sic]
The footnote says that Marjorie Agosin was cited in an article by Robin Wilson. So I decided to find the original citation and look at the original work by Agosin. The good news is that I was actually able to find the original article entitled Anthropologist Challenges Veracity of Multicultural Icon. As it turns out it was a quote not a citation, which I found discouraging. Nonetheless, here is the original quote from the article.
“I think Rigoberta Menchu has been used by the right to negate the very important space that multiculturalism is providing in academia,” says Marjorie Agosin, head of the Spanish department at Wellesley College. “Whether her book is true or not, I don’t care. We should teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the U.S. financing of it.”
As it turns out Dr. Agosin, is a Spanish professor who is also a human rights activist. Her whole point of this quote is the issue of human rights problems that occurred in Guatemala. To this end her quote is a good one. It is also worthy to note that there are many comments saying how bad her comment was. Now for the Tackett problems: Tackett intentionally misquotes and misleads with his comments. After all the original quote was there as a whole and he used exactly what he wanted to use. This makes Tackett at best a deceiver and at worst an out and out liar.
The Mayflower Compact
The Mayflower Compact is told by Del Tackett to have what is called the “New School Version.” The NSV as written by Tackett as:
In the name of God, Amen.
___________________________________
We whose names are underwritten, . . .
having undertaken,
_________________________________
a voyage to plant the first colony . . . [sic]
The issue here is that it looks like and is said to be the version in school books across the country. Makes sense to me does it not? Once again, I will have to strip away gilding and point the problem.
The original version is:
“In the name of God, Amen. . . .
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia,”
The real question comes down to, is what he said true? There are admittedly 100s of US History textbooks published every year. I personally have a collection, or access to, about 25 differing US History textbooks used for American History by middle school and high school students over the last 30 or so years. I also have a smaller collection of college level textbooks. I decided to do a little test, did Tackett tell the truth?
The answer is, clearly a no. My current oldest textbook is from 1979. This particular books does not quote the Mayflower Compact at all. I have another printed in 1998 that has a single edited sentence from the text. This was the one that the group focused on, of course. The other 24 books had the Mayflower Compact complete and unedited. So once again, I am wondering how accurate Tackett’s statement is once again.
The next section, is a re-quote of Josh McDowell’s list of the New Testament compared to other ancient literature. Here is the problem with >24,000 texts of the Greek New Testament (GNT), dated from 25 years from the writing of the New Testament. The text that is within 25 years is p52. This fragment has small portion of John 8 (about 4 verses). Here is a copy of the fragment:
The 25 years is from the writing of the book of Revelation (about 90-95 AD) and the best dates from the fragment are 125CE to 160CE. Therefore the number can be as read as 70 years and as low as about 30 years.
The second problem that I must give credit to Tackett on is the number of manuscripts. He correctly identified that only about 19000 of the 24000 fragments to whole books are written in Greek. The other 5000 are written in other languages. What he fails to mention is that majority of the manuscripts are written after 500 CE. Which is 400 years after and many of those are written 700 years after the fact. McDowell does do a decent job of dealing with in his book. Which I will note is cited correctly.
Does the Bible deserve special treatment?
Does the Bible need to be treated differently then other pieces of literature. The answer is both yes and no. When reconstructing the text to be as close as to the autograph, the Bible cannot be beaten. The New Testament stands head and shoulders above every other book in antiquity. I am of the opinion that we are at about 98% of the autograph.
However, Cesar’s commentaries on the Gaelic War all the other examples used, do not make the truth claims that the Bible makes. Hence, the Bible needs to be treated differently.
Here we have another problem with Tackett’s lack of scholarship. There are people who doubt that Socrates existed. There are many many people who doubt that Homer existed. So complaining that the Bible is so different is a hollow argument.
Memorial Stones
Next is the discussion turns to the memorial stones of the Torah. Here occurs the best line so far: Our Problem, remembering what we should forget, forgetting what we should remember. Here is also notes that paradoxes in the Bible and the sovereignty of G-d.
Slide 38 is a fun slide to just pick on. This one slide is by far the worst slide so far out of the 300 or slides he has. This gives “The Providential View of History”. My question is simple: what does the right side tell us? Is G-d’s Providence 0% or 100% at Creation and then at the time of fulfillment is it 100% or 0%? Not to sure but the wrong graph was chosen for this visual.
The next segment is this overview of Biblical History. This mini movie was very good and I loved the design of the stills. Kudos to those who spent months working on this visual.
Tackett closes with a view of his story. Then quotes Bradford saying the pilgrims showed themselves as stepping stones.
One More Thing
Tackett is all concerned with historical revision and really proved there was none. However, he fails to mention Christian historical revisionism. Which is coming up and I will comment on that later.
Most examples of G-d being removed from society comes not from historians and textbooks but from politicians and monuments.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, History, Church, Philosophy
Jan 17
theisaacgroupChristians, Church, Critique, fads, focus on the family, The Truth Project
Over the next 12 weeks, I will be presenting a critique of the Truth Project. I will be looking at this with my normally critical eye. The good news, since I have a vast amount of experience with the subject matter, I should not be overwhelmed.
You better not shout!
You better not waiver!
You had better believe!
The Truth Project is coming to town.
After trying to google for information on “The Truth Project” by Focus on the Family, I have found two type of articles. The first, was a whole bunch of stuff by Focus on the Family touting the greatness of Del Tackett and the Truth Project. The second was from churches and other groups announcing they are showing it and how great it is. However, the amount of a criticism or offering a critique of the program are quite scant.
I also found an article from Humanists of Florida writing how bad it is in a press release. That is bright, advertise for them!
I also found a small critique of The Truth Project from Hackman’s Musings.
I have only seen, so far, the first episode, and will be going back for more.
Before, the start the pastor/leader said three things that bothered me.
1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda.
2. You will be challenged
3. You will be changed.
Of course the problem is several deep. 1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda? Wow and to think I misunderstood James Dobson for 20 years. 2. I was not challenged. 3. I was not changed. So what does it mean if I was not changed or challenged? Not to sure.
The first problem, is the amount of territory superficially covered. I have a background in much of what was given and lectured on. I easily followed along with the lecture. Let’s be real this is close to two or three classes of what people would receive in a graduate level classroom environment. Here, the Truth Project tries to hit the common person with a high school education or a year of college.
Where are some of the problems?
First, is proof-texting. A proof text is a text that will back up what a person says regardless of context or original intent of the scripture. Most of the texts that were used were proof-texted. The easiest way to spot a proof-text is when a speaker is trying to make a point and they are skipping all over the place. What is proof-texting’s handmaiden?
The ugly twin sister of proof-texting is ripping a verse out of context. This is not a separate point because proof-texting relies on the lack of context. A prime example, using 2Thes 2:11 which says, “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (NIV),” Tackett wanted to point out that people will believe the lie. The problem is that this verse in context refers to end of times, when the BEAST will appear.
Second, what is the right answer? The question was asked, why did Jesus come? There are many verses that speak to the reasons why Jesus came to earth. Well Del was looking for a single answer that proved his point. Truth. Jesus came for truth.
Third, eisogesis, the speaker loves to use eisogesis, which is the reading into the text. Here on creation the devil was present and questioned G-d and the creation. Nowhere does the text suggest the mythical conversation that Del Tackett had suggested. Exegesis is reading out of the text. In other words the text can mean what it means. Del Tackett methods do not allow for good exegesis.
Fourth, is the division among people. Christians love dividing people up. There are Christians and non-Christians. Then there are real Christians and pretend Christians. Of course, it goes even further.
Another thing that drives me a little crazy is when people misuse things they know very little about. As an example, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap at McDonalds. The problem is that there was a liability issue involved as the coffee was to hot as compared to other companies. The other issue is the woman who spilled her coffee was not driving and was pulled over to the side. Liebeck (the burned woman) was found to be 20% responsible for the injury. I realize that a straw man is much easier to bash around than the truth.
One of the real problems was view of non-Christians. The people are thought to be ‘captives’ by the enemy, aka Satan. Of course I wonder how the analogy really works? Theologically, all people are in Satan’s camp through ordinal sin. In many was the Christian is the one that is captive.
Of course the odd part was that he asked the definition of truth. Which is of course defined, accepting reality as it actually is. In other words if you do not accept reality you are insane. Since Christians accept the reality and truth about Jesus, this makes non-Christians who do not accept the reality of Jesus, by definition, insane.
The last is of course logical fallacies involved. The straw man leads the back by creating a dichotomy of how the data is dealt with. Faulty appeal to authority was used, as was appeal to masses, and a few others. I counted at least a dozen logical fallacies that were present.
My favorite thing about the video was of course the wonderful staged set that was used. Almost perfect audio, and just do pretty looking. But what else would you expect for a staged set.
Edit: I just looked up how he used truth from the 1828 version of Webster. The creative use of . . . (ellipses) meaning that words are eliminated. He uses these to move from the first definition to the 11th definition.
Edit 2: I need to stop looking at my notes. Faith? Is faith like jumping off of diving board. I know this is a common view of most people. How man times have I heard a blind leap of faith. Faith, as I have viewed it, is taking of a step. A single step of faith not a blind jump into who knows what.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy
RSS