Incorporating Your Feedback
TheTruthProblem @ gmail.com
Since I published this site I've received a lot of feedback from fellow Christians. Some shared my concerns about the program, and others had valuable constructive criticism for improving this site. It has been very encouraging to hear that most believers aren't covering their ears to these concerns, and are as interested as I am in the uncompromised truth, wherever it may lead.
I am trying my best to continually improve and refine this site based on the feedback I receive from other Christians, especially those involved in group leadership. What follows is a record of site updates.
Added a new "Your Fact Check" entry contributed by a reader. With regard to the separation of church and state in America, The Truth Project quoted Tocqueville out of context to pretend that his opinion was the opposite of what it actually was.
Fixed a misnomer in the Science Fact Check, and added references for the transitional fossils.
I've added an entirely new section, called "Christians React," where I share some of the feedback I've received about this site, as well as some other resources to investigate.
A blogger said, "I guess I'm just wondering why we'd try to take the Bible any other way than literal." This interested me, because no Christian I've ever met reads the story of the serpent in Genesis 3 literally. I wrote an essay entitled "The Hidden Consensus" and added it to the site.
I added this "updates" section.
One group leader was concerned that too much time was spent on minutia -- that with regard to philosophical positions, Del's intent was to convey things simply rather than completely accurately. I realized that the wording of the "Solipsism" fact check in particular made it seem as if problem was tiny, so I refined it to more clearly convey the gravity of the misstatement.
Several group leaders appreciated the effort behind this site, but since their particular group and their church in general was already heavily involved in The Truth Project, they were afraid that confronting these issues head-on might be confusing and disheartening for the attendees. I modified the introduction, adding the suggestion to have group leaders include errata lists in their post-tour discussions.
A group leader found fault with this statement in the first science fact check: "Scientific theories never rule out God's existence merely by keeping their details, appropriately, in the natural realm." After a discussion, he understood my position, but we agreed that I had not conveyed it accurately enough. So I added the following after the initially-offending statement: "It is only the hyper-applied, 'science' (so-called) of metaphysical naturalists that takes issue with God."
Another group leader suggested that I avoid descriptions of myself that might inadvertently come across as prideful. For instance, I had described myself as "a devout Christian," as opposed to being a nominal Christian. But to many, the term "devout" has holier-than-thou overtones, which was never intended. I modified the site to reflect my intent.
The Truth Problem is published.
(c) 2009 The Truth Problem.