There is no here strawman whatever. A strawman fallacy occurs when one caricatures someone else’s position and then argues against that caricature. I have simply asked you to clarify your terms.

Pointing to me as your definition is still not very edifying. You need to provide the characteristics of what you define to be a “conservative Christian.” The term “conservative” is widely abused and arose in reference to political philosophies. As we are purposefully non-partisan at CLS, I doubt you will find any “conservative” politics in my posts. When this term is applied to Christianity it loses any precision it might have had in the political sphere and can mean anything anyone wants. Sometimes it means that for those who disagree with what the Church has always taught, anyone who accepts the Church’s teaching is called (pejoratively) a “conservative.” Is this what you are trying to say?

You have consistantly denegrated any science-based conclusions that are at odds with your idealogical beliefs as being faulty or inaccurate.

Hmmm, so are you saying that if it is “science-based” than one is obliged to uncritically accept everything or nothing? There is almost no issue in which one will find universal agreement in the fields of science. For those interpretations of the available data with which I take issue, I usually provide rationale based upon the opposing interpretation by those in the field. You will have to be more specific if you want to take this further.

At the same time if you find a “scientific” study or book, etc. that you think agrees with your idealogy, you hold it up as being iron-clad solid fact.

I have addressed this many times before with you but each time you ignore my explanation of epistemological priority. There is no such thing in my view, of “iron-clad solid fact” coming from the empirical sciences. Modern science provides the most tenuous of all knowledge with regard to certainty and the most incomplete with regard to the totality of being. Next up on the rung in terms of certainty, is philosophical speculation, and finally Revealed truth is the most certain. When the issue is anthropology, the field of “science” has not the competence to speak about ontology, which I assume is your concern. When I speak of the human person, I use data from all three modes of knowledge. Modern science, because it is reductive in method and scope of speculation, will rarely provide conclusions that involve the whole human person and so can be taken without modification. This is because of erroneous, materialist presuppositions. Thus, I will have to put to the side the “scientists’” unwarranted entres into metaphysical speculation. It is more often the case that I will make use of their data and interpretations of others who use a more comprehensive hermeneutic. This is perhaps the phenomenon to which you take issue. However, the blade cuts both ways, you will be put into a contradictory position if you accept every “scientific” conclusion, because they very often contradict. Neither can one suppose that the majority is always right because we know from experience that very often that the majority position often turns out to be wrong. That is because of the intense pressure in the academy to conform to the majority report.

I also question your apparent need to quote “scientific” sources to back your assumptions and claims in the first place. Moral law is not the same as say, the laws of physics.

Again, I have responded to you on this before. In sum, you seem to hold a Kantian view of knowledge. Authentic knowledge, participating the the Truth of the Creator, is a unified whole. Thus, I always will present data from all three modes of knowldege to show that they correspond, as they must if they are to be the truth.

f you want a good critique of Cameron, and to a certain degree, what you are attempting to do with “scientific” claims as well, then read the link below:

Actually, I have seen more complete treatments of the claims against Cameron. All of them suffer from the same problems. First, the issues surround a difference in interpretation of the facts. The term “unethical” is thrown up against him in the context of using “erroneous” interpretations of his data (not false reporting, not cooking the books, but interpretations) to promote discrimination against “gay and lesbian” people. I have not read all of his works, but the same claim of bigotry is made against anyone who says that SSA is a disorder. The professional organizations which have called him “unethical” have in the same statements affirmed thier support of “gay rights.” Cameron provides reasonable responses to the claims against him on his site.

Secondly, every site I have seen that presents their “facts” against him is auspiciously “gay rights” in their focus. Thus, you will have to excuse my reticence in dismissing him out of hand.
Without an uninterested, qualified third party judgment against him, I most reasonably will reserve judgment.

In terms of how I used his data, it is as mediated by other experts. For example, the Regents Law Review sponsored study to which I referred in the post you are talking about was done by outside experts in the field and they found that of the 36 or so studies on the subject we are discussing, the Cameron was faulted primarily on the sample size, as were almost all of the others, but they found the Cameron/Cameron methodology to be sound. The small sample size was due to the fact the SSA households are so few in number that using random sampling, obtaining a statistically significant sample size would be cost prohibitive.

You will excuse me in the future when I ignore you, if in your next comments to me you continue make the same claims against me without providing arguments that what I have said above is somehow in error. In the end, I rather suspect that you are projecting the way you approach things onto others.

First, you need to be clear about classifications. What is a “conservative Christian”? A registered Republican? This is a misleading and not very edifying term.

Straw man arguement David, but very well, lets narrow down the category to “you”.

You have consistantly denegrated any science-based conclusions that are at odds with your idealogical beliefs as being faulty or inaccurate.

At the same time if you find a “scientific” study or book, etc. that you think agrees with your idealogy, you hold it up as being iron-clad solid fact. Even when it comes from such widely known and disproven dodgy, dishonest sources such as Dr. Paul Cameron, whom you are “withholding judgement” on.

I also question your apparent need to quote “scientific” sources to back your assumptions and claims in the first place. Moral law is not the same as say, the laws of physics.

If you want a good critique of Cameron, and to a certain degree, what you are attempting to do with “scientific” claims as well, then read the link below:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,011.htm

First, you need to be clear about classifications. What is a “conservative Christian”? A registered Republican? This is a misleading and not very edifying term.

Secondly, going from “what you hear from conservative Christians” to a blanket statement about the moral authority of all Christians falls into the category of a hasty generalization. Even if you do hear it from some who consider themselves Christian does not mean that it is a tenet of Christian faith. Neither, is it something that one can claim is the position of even most Christians. This hasty generalization is as illogical as dismissing Christianity because not all Christians act in a Christian manner.

Thirdly, assuming that you are correct that some Christians do not take data from the medical science with the seriousness they ought does not fall into the realm of morality. It would an error in judgment. Thus, I do not see how it should affect moral authority.

Finally, it is not clear to me what you suggest by brain studies of so called “gay and lesbian” brain differences. Whether there is an identifiable trend or not would do nothing to prove the ontological status of SSA. The body gives hints to the soul but it is not an exhaustive expression of the soul. Because we are more than material, and medical science limits itself to the material world, brain studies alone and modern science in general have not the competence to speak on the issue of the ontology of the human person or sexual identity.

Feminist Kim Gandy, head of the National Organization for Women, said schools should ignore so-called brain and sensory data distinguishing girls and boys, which she calls “rubbish.”

Which is the same thing I hear from Conservative Christians when they talk about the brain differences between gay and lesbian and heterosexual people.

That means that Christians are not exactly in a position of moral authority to go around criticizing others for adhering to ideology instead of dealing rationally and fairly with scientific fact.

One of the reasons I teach in a Catholic school is to avoid the nonsense of the agenda-riddled public school systems.

If you are running to a Catholic school to escape “agendas”, you are not running far enough. It was, after all, at a Catholic school that I was subjected to the horrors of a mandatory “Christian Encounters” class. Taught by a jean-skirt wearing guitar-playing ex-nun in Birkenstock’s no less. With bean-bag chairs instead of desks.

I learned far more about Catholicism when I transferred to public school and took a comparative world Religion’s class. (Surprisingly, the course credits from the “Christian Encounters” class didn’t transfer.)

If people really, truly cared about children and wanted the best for them educationally, our public school systems would look very different!