Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 12:50:33 {xx2d.1sWpQePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *AP and AF posted by Seeker on November 17, 1999 at 12:28:18:
Seeker
Ignorance cannot be appealed to when you point out knowledge. Incompetence cannot be appealed to when you show how to make the changes. When nothing changes after that, you must find other explanations.
The problem Seeker is that people’s convictions often lead them toward weighing evidence differently, sometimes even blindly (which blindness is also incompetence).
I consider that the Society has gone too far with its presentation of “evidences” on occasion. For starters I think some representations of outside sources in the Creation book go beyond what a reasonable person could conclude from carefully considering those sources. Is that dishonesty or incompetence? I think a reasonable person could conclude that it is dishonesty. I also think that another reasonable person could conclude that it is pitiful blind incompetence induced by conviction. So, is it dishonesty or incompetence? Each must decide for themselves. Unfortunately, as much as we would like to think otherwise, each of us has a tendency to see certain things with colored glasses. That is why respecting the individual choice is important. Doing so also allows that we get beyond whether someone agrees with us to actually sharing information and ideas. That sharing is more important than whether we agree.
I will also point out that AF’s contention was built around proving something to others, not what he could prove to himself based upon his experience. While AF’s own experiences are certainly important to his own choices and conclusions they are less so to those who have had contrary experiences. Those who have had contrary experiences may not believe his portrayal of each experience.
Friend