Skip to content

Sean Faircloth’s Talk at the SSA

August 11, 2009

I just got off the phone with Sean Faircloth, and it prompted me to do something I had been meaning to do later in the week, but I need to do it now.

I posted this on my blog, “Shawn Faircloth of the SCA used a lot of emotionally charged logical fallcies and leaps in his talk.”

After our talk, I realized I had misheard him. I had thought that he was implying that all Christians take the book of James in the sense that some faith healer folks do. That is, have the elders pray for you and then don’t go to the doctor. Of course, James is advocating prayer, but never says “don’t see a doctor”. And, most Christians throughout its history have done just that. Pray and go see a doctor. I mean, for crying out loud, Luke was a physician!!!

Anyway, I misunderstood Sean to mean he thought all Christians were like that. I apologize to Sean and appreciated his phone call. I loved that he called and tried to make sure he was being clear. I actually loved one of his points about the church turning into an unregulated business. I’ll be talking more about that in the future.

I’m holding you to that promise to have a beer the next time you are in town, Sean.


7 Comments leave one →
  1. Jerome permalink
    August 11, 2009 10:11 pm

    My goodness, are you telling us that, given new evidence and clarification, you changed your previously held opinion? Isn’t that…. wavering in your FAITH!?

    Oh wait, you mean faith isn’t synonymous with absolute certainty? Someone should let a certain pastor in Kentucky know this…

    Snarkiness aside, I applaud your willingness to publicly change your opinions given new information, as well as to engage in rational discourse. Like many of your first wave of visitors, I also came from Pharyngula, in witnessing the CreoZerg/Tom Estes brouhaha, and I am also quite impressed by the dissimilarity between yourself and the HardTruth™ (delicious irony) blog.

    Your pedagogy has succeeded in my case, as well. While without tangible evidence, I am surely a lost cause for a convert, I was previously unaware of dualism being applied to the dichotomy between human reason and “divine revelation”. I’d previously only been aware of it as the Cartesian mind/body separation, but now I can see how the two are even interrelated. Also, you did get me to even read a bit of scripture, whereby I reread the parts of John about Doubting Thomas the Apostle 😉

    Thank you for your dedication to intellectual honesty. As a new and happy subscriber, I look forward to reading more of your posts.

    De omnibus dubitandum est.

  2. thomas2026 permalink*
    August 11, 2009 10:21 pm

    Well done! You are the first to put the reference together. Or at least, pull it together in one place.

    I’m glad you see the difference in reasoning. It really is the important and central point, especially in regards to the type of Christianity represented at the Creation museum.

    And, feel free (everyone else too) to call me on my intellectual dishonesty, if I ever do that. Hopefully, I won’t.


  3. Jerome permalink
    August 11, 2009 11:55 pm

    And, feel free (everyone else too) to call me on my intellectual dishonesty, if I ever do that. Hopefully, I won’t.

    To quote an intentionally misconstrued line from PZ:

    “Oh, we will.” 😉

    And at the risk of being accused of “telling the blogger how to run his blog”, I’d love to see a post at some point in the future, after you get your blog legs, about your reasons for belief, as well.

    Thanks again.

  4. thomas2026 permalink*
    August 11, 2009 11:57 pm

    Ha, was that said sarcastically? 🙂

    Ah yes, reasons for belief is on it’s way in the coming weeks. Never fear.

  5. Oliver Turner permalink
    August 12, 2009 1:36 am

    Sincerely, I’d be fascinated to hear your reasons for believing too: I’ve never been able to do so, with the so-called Evidential Problem of Evil being a particular stumbling block.

    Relatedly – and an issue you yourself are deeply concerned with – is slavery. How can one accept the glaring absence of any Biblical proscription in either testament without inferring that it – a manifest evil – must therefore enjoy God’s tacit sanction?

    I’m not being awkward or trying to trip you up, I’m just genuinely interested in how you address problems I’ve found insuperable. Please do write your piece.

  6. Denovo permalink
    August 12, 2009 2:10 am

    Yes, that will be interesting. I look forward to it.

  7. thomas2026 permalink*
    August 12, 2009 2:48 am

    Hey Oliver,
    Not at all. Take a look at my latest post. I gave a little schedule how I’m going to handles these questions. How would that be?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: