And you've hit upon my main weak spot in religious discussions: As I have no feeling one way or the other about any religions, I can only talk about them in terms of intellectual phenomena... When the Buddha said that, he was probably talking to some ancient Indian version of me :)
If everyone here spoke only from emotion, there would be no discussion: only babbling. What you call your "weak spot" is something this thread profits greatly from, in my estimation... especially because you seem to have enough intellectual understanding to raise some valid points.
|
But, I'm still not sure how "This religion didn't have anything like the Crusades, so their text must have more credentials" is true.
Then what should be? WHAT COUNTS!? Those texts are more valid because they have no history of bring used to encite massive atrocities. When you look at books that are supposed to lead confused souls to salvation and peace, what the hell could be more relevant than wether or not they perform that job? How is this not important?
Are you an American? Even after all the atrocities that were committed against the Native American peoples?
I don't know of any Christians that saw the Crusades as a good thing. As I understand it, politicians took control of the situation and used religion to incite the people. They weren't using the Bible to justify what they were doing. It was a political campaign that used religion to help them get people to do what they wanted which left the church as a scapegoat.
Bill Clinton misused his position and authority. Does that mean that we shouldn't follow the Constitution? Jim Baker misused the Bible. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong or invalid? No. It means that someone misused it.
My understanding is that the Crusades lost. If anything, this tells me that it WASN'T sanctioned by God. The Crusades were a political campaign attempting to use God to justify it. But I still feel that it has little to nothing to do with the validity of the Bible. I feel that the only thing this shows is how politicians can twist things around to get people to do what they want.
|
|
Is there any logical argument whatsoever that can vouch for the bible as the best choice of written religious guidance?
There's only one argument, Sexi, that pretty much all Christians use (and can never be refuted on precisely because it does not depend on logic): "I believe in it, therefore it must be true."
Not exactly. There really isn't a therefore. It is much more "I believe that it is true". The truth is that it might not be, but I have faith that it is. I have been trying my best not to pull the "it just is" card since it really isn't based on logic.
True believers do not evaluate things based on evidence or logic. By logical standards, Sebastian absolutely trounced Moff Rimmer into the dust in their recent "mini-debate." But Moff is obviously an intelligent guy, and I think that, by his standards, he didn't "lose" that debate at all-- Sebastian did, for not grasping Moff's sole argument: his faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, Moff, but I'm guessing you read all of Sebastion's and Sexi's arguments, and are probably left feeling like they're missing the point.
There are a number of things here. I do believe that Sebastian has done (and will continue to do) a great job in his debate. I also believe that he has done a better job than I have. The truth is that there really isn't any proof one way or the other and it is easier to provide support showing how much lack of support there is than the opposite.
I have read all of Sebastian's and Sexi's posts and I don't feel like they are missing the point at all. If anything, I feel that they get the point quite well and provide me with valuable insight into how they are thinking.
When I asked Sebastian what "proof" people are looking for, he responded with "magic". While I understand that he was being a bit sarcastic, there is some truth to that. People keep talking about a "logical argument" or "proof" that the Bible is more valid without really thinking about what form that would look like. While I think that you may be quite right about "if God came down to Earth in a flash of miracles" regarding Christians, I don't know that I believe that Sexi or Sebastian would believe in it either since "magic" doesn't really exist.
Asking around some of my circles of information, this is what I have come up with...
First of all, I would like to say that I was wrong about the archeology argument. The only thing that archeology does is validate that it is an ancient document placing it around the time that it suggests. Archeology should not be a basis for validating a religion. It gives a document historical significance and that is it.
On the other hand, while I understand what Sebastian's point about Steven King's novels were, Steven King makes no indication that his novels are true at all. That doesn't mean that the Bible is true, but it isn't necessarily the best comparison.
Now one thing that was mentioned to me is that the Bible is the oldest document that shows evidence that it has remained unchanged throughout time. (One of the reasons why the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important.) The second oldest is the Koran. To me this is fairly significant. It tells me that while our interpretations of the Bible may change slightly throughout time, the actual scripture hasn't. While this also doesn't really mean that people should just start believing the Bible because it is the oldest unchanged document in existence, it is an interesting fact.
C.S. Lewis basically said that the best way to "validate" the Bible is to line it up with what you know about how the world is and works and to do the same with the other religious texts. I believe that Sexi and Sebastian at least have attempted to do this (to one degree or another).
However, in the end it does come down to a matter of faith. There isn't sufficient "evidence" to really support either side. In the end, I have faith that there is a God and they have faith that there isn't.
Are you an American? Even after all the atrocities that were committed against the Native American peoples?
I am. Now if there were a country out there with the same (or more) benefits to me and a less shameful history then I'd immigrate in a heartbeat (or when I actually got money).
Buddhism has a much cleaner sheet, provides a guide to a happy life, and hasn't been involved in any genocide. Why aren't all religious people buddhists?
My understanding is that the Crusades lost. If anything, this tells me that it WASN'T sanctioned by God.
I'm assuming this was just a casual remark and you weren't suggeting that failure or success in war is governed by divine providence. THAT is a very slippery slope.
|
|
My understanding is that the Crusades lost. If anything, this tells me that it WASN'T sanctioned by God.
I'm assuming this was just a casual remark and you weren't suggeting that failure or success in war is governed by divine providence. THAT is a very slippery slope.
True. I believe that many/most wars are just a whole lot of people that have a disagreement. It's just that, assuming that God does exist, that if he did have some kind of "holy war", I would hope that he was on the "winning" side. Even if the Crusades had won (and as I understand it, they had many opportunities to "win") I don't know that I would have believed that it was sanctioned by God. There were too many other things that came about in those wars that were against what God teaches.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to get in on the discussion. Religion and philosophy just make me angry.
Boy have you come to the wrong place. ;-)
I have been trying my best not to pull the "it just is" card since it really isn't based on logic.
I have been saying "it just is", because when I say that I mean the phenomenon is observable. Is your god observable?
Now one thing that was mentioned to me is that the Bible is the oldest document that shows evidence that it has remained unchanged throughout time.
Actually that title would go to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a novel about a violent, promiscous demigod's search for the meaning of life. I highly recommend it.
However, in the end it does come down to a matter of faith. There isn't sufficient "evidence" to really support either side. In the end, I have faith that there is a God and they have faith that there isn't.
I don't think it's faith. If anything it's pragmatism: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
|
|
I have been trying my best not to pull the "it just is" card since it really isn't based on logic.
I have been saying "it just is", because when I say that I mean the phenomenon is observable. Is your god observable?
Sure -- but it isn't necessarily "obvious" nor would an atheist necessarily believe that the same things came from God.
Now one thing that was mentioned to me is that the Bible is the oldest document that shows evidence that it has remained unchanged throughout time.
Actually that title would go to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a novel about a violent, promiscous demigod's search for the meaning of life. I highly recommend it.
I meant to say "religious document". Haven't read the Epic of Gilgamesh. But you're saying that the novel has remained word for word unchanged -- that's kind of cool.
However, in the end it does come down to a matter of faith. There isn't sufficient "evidence" to really support either side. In the end, I have faith that there is a God and they have faith that there isn't.
I don't think it's faith. If anything it's pragmatism: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I disagree with this statement. There isn't any proof that there isn't a God. Regardless of what people might think, dinosaurs don't prove that God doesn't exist. The only thing that it "proves" is that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. There is actually a whole lot of faith involved in believing that there isn't a God. Take for instance the flood -- Sebastian seemed to imply that there was scientific evidence that there wasn't a world-wide flood. I have seen documentation opposite of that, but regardless, let's assume that there was indisputable evidence that a world-wide flood actually did happen. Would that change the atheist's point of view? Not at all. Once again, it would simply indicate that the Bible is once again a fairly accurate historical document. I don't know what scientific evidence would say that God existed. I also don't know what scientific evidence would say that he didn't exist either. Either way, it is still a matter of faith. If you can't determine what kind of "test" would "prove" God's existence, then I don't see how it is "evidence of absence".
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
However, in the end it does come down to a matter of faith. There isn't sufficient "evidence" to really support either side. In the end, I have faith that there is a God and they have faith that there isn't.
At the risk of quoting the most over-quoted argument in all of atheism, I also lack sufficient evidence to determine whether there is, in fact, a giant flying spaghetting monster that lives in Jupiter. Yet I would submit that belief in such an idea is absurd.
I love the argument posted above regarding the signs of a single diety being as perceptible as the signs of the big bang. Every other universal element of human life (e.g., gravity, freezing point of water, etc) is constant across all cultures and all peoples. They can be discovered by all such persons. They are universal.
No one who grew up in rural China will ever through the process of thought, prayer, meditation, drug-use, or otherwise discover on their own that Jesus Christ was the son of god, the one true path to salvation, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah, it's hard to make the case that there is no God generally. The case that the Christian God is not the sole divine being seems fairly simple.
The age of the Earth can be calculated through counting lifetimes in the Bible. IIRC, it's roughly 6,000 years.
If DNA provides problems for Mormons, it provides the same problems for Christians. The scientific evidence does not support the fact that all humans are descended from exactly two humans.
The diversity of life is inconsistent with the story of Noah/the flood. Period. The fact that major religions mention a flood is irrelevant given that the archeological record shows no such event.
These are not minor discrepancies where proof is lacking. Science can and does show that these Biblical truths are false. End of the day, you can pick and choose and claim there's not really contradictory evidence, but that's moving from reasonable belief into irrationale hope. There's not any evidence of which I am aware contradicting all the divine messages I provided earlier in this thread (e.g. "God told me X"). There's not any evidence showing that electricity is actually caused by the farts of Thor. And yet, in no other arena, in no other area of life, are such views presented with the burden of proof placed on the person who says such ideas are absurd.
The contradictions are there, the scientific evidence is there, and there is no distinction between the Mormon who says "Neh, I believe even though the DNA evidence doesn't match up with my holy book" and the Christian who says "Neh, I believe even though there is no archeological evidence of a Biblical flood."
|
|
The age of the Earth can be calculated through counting lifetimes in the Bible. IIRC, it's roughly 6,000 years.
I don't know of any Christians that believe this. Why do you?
The 6,000 years takes a whole lot of things into consideration -- mostly that God actually wanted to take the time to tell Moses every single father/child relationship that happened from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. There is little reason to assume this -- especially assuming that the earth is much older. How many generations do you think can be formed in 1 million years? Do you think that it is practical or necessary to list them all down for little to no reason? So why do you think that it is necessary for the Bible to list them out?
Again, I don't know of any Christians that currently think that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
On the other hand, while I understand what Sebastian's point about Steven King's novels were, Steven King makes no indication that his novels are true at all. That doesn't mean that the Bible is true, but it isn't necessarily the best comparison.
In that case, let me state, defintively, that before, when I said God spoke to me, he really did. It's true.
Also, I talked with Stephen King the other day, and he told me that some (though not all) of his novels are true. The ones that aren't true are those where the world ends and such. I've talked to the publishers, and once he dies, we're going to make sure that we include a forward to those novels saying "This is the truth, as told by Stephen King, the prophet."
I guess also we should give additional credence to all the statements by the Church that the sun orbits the Earth. I'm fairly certain that those were intended to be "true."
I must say, that is the most absurd and irrelevant point of deviation. A con man will tell you he's telling the truth, a witness on the stand under oath will tell you he's telling the truth and yet contradict a videotape of the same event. Said witness may even believe they are conveying the truth.
Saying you are telling the truth has absolutely nothing to do with actually telling the truth.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The age of the Earth can be calculated through counting lifetimes in the Bible. IIRC, it's roughly 6,000 years.I don't know of any Christians that believe this. Why do you?
The 6,000 years takes a whole lot of things into consideration -- mostly that God actually wanted to take the time to tell Moses every single father/child relationship that happened from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. There is little reason to assume this -- especially assuming that the earth is much older. How many generations do you think can be formed in 1 million years? Do you think that it is practical or necessary to list them all down for little to no reason? So why do you think that it is necessary for the Bible to list them out?
Again, I don't know of any Christians that currently think that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Yet that was the belief held by most Christians for a majority of the past two millenia.
And, there are those who believe it true today. From the always reliable Wikipedia:
Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by those Christians who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal six (24-Hour) day account of creation, that evidence for a strict interpretation of scripture as historical fact is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or any other theory that may contradict their theology.
Here's the little blurb of how they do it:
The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating. YECs typically derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce.
YECs believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark. (Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much earlier around 3536 BC.) This global flood is thought to be responsible for the multitude of geological features that mainstream science regards as evidence for an old earth, although it doesn't at present fully expain issues such as the ancient city of Ur, which evidence suggests was built around 3500BC and thrived for well over a thousand years.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Saying you are telling the truth has absolutely nothing to do with actually telling the truth.Which is why I said that it isn't a reason to believe the Bible.
But Steven King has already said that his work isn't the truth, so I didn't feel that it was a valid comparison.
He will recant on his deathbed (and, even beyond). Right now, he doesn't dare admit that he has seen the truth because of fear of persecution. Once he dies though, I, and other believers, can gather his works and preach the truth.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And for many, many years science "proved" that the earth was flat.
Again, I feel that science helps us understand God and the Bible better.
The difference is that science has gained new information, new theories, and new tools since those times. The Bible is the same document it ever was.
And, I'm still waiting, and with some impatience at this point, for the answer to the $30 million question: How can the Christian God be the one, true, and only God when he is, was, and always will be inaccessible to a significant portion of the now living and long deceased human population.
And for many, many years science "proved" that the earth was flat.
Again, I feel that science helps us understand God and the Bible better.
The difference is that science has gained new information, new theories, and new tools since those times. The Bible is the same document it ever was.
And, I'm still waiting, and with some impatience at this point, for the answer to the $30 million question: How can the Christian God be the one, true, and only God when he is, was, and always will be inaccessible to a significant portion of the now living and long deceased human population.
OK Sebastian, I'll try to answer this question as well as I can.
God made the entire world, and so in the beginning He WAS the accessible to ALL people who lived. But if you read the Bible, you will see that it didn't take long for people to turn their back on Him, and reject Him, which led to Noah and the Flood.
But even after the flood, people still rejected God and went their own way (The tower of Babel), so this time God cursed them by confusing their languages, making different people groups, and scattering them across the earth.
But then He chose Abram (later to become Abraham) to be the one the World would be saved through, it is from Abraham the Jews, God's chosen people are descended.
The Jews were suppossed to be a great example to the peoples around them of the awesomeness that was living for God, but the screwed it up royally, and so God judged them.
Finally, around 2,000 years ago, He sent Jesus. Jesus lived the perfect life, always followed God perfectly, before dieing on the cross, and then rising again to life three days later. Now ALL can be saved through Him.
Ever since then, Chrisitans have (not as well as we should have), been preaching the gospel of Jesus to the four corners of the Earth. We have done a pretty good job, as now most countries have a significant Christian population.
Now, if the Question is what about those who dies never hearing the gospel, then to be honest, I really don't know exactly what they will face on Judgement day. The Bible tells me God will be Just, and Fair, but I am not sure of specifics. Perhaps the best description I have heard is that they will be judged according to what they Do with what they had the opportunity to Know. So those with the opportunity to hear the gospel will be judged "harsher" than those who were enver within 100 miles of someone proclaiming the gospel.
Not sure if that is clear or not. I have to go now, but if there are any more questions, then I'll try to answer them when I get a chance.
Again, I don't know of any Christians that currently think that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Consider yourself fortunate. I taught in a high school in Virginia once in which one of the HISTORY teachers was teaching that number to the kids.
Moff, I need to add, lest it gets lost in the multitudinous postings, that I appreciate very much your responses to my queries. I learn a lot on these boards about Christians who think-- and are therefore very much unlike the anti-science young-earth hate-mongers who seem ever more vocal in this part of the U.S. lately.
One thing, though--the Bible is hardly unchanged, or at least that's what I was told by a freind of mine who actually read Aramaic (or so I was led to believe: I don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, or ancient Greek, personally). He summarized the King James version as "very good for daily inspirational reading, but not for serious study."
|
|
Moff, I need to add, lest it gets lost in the multitudinous postings, that I appreciate very much your responses to my queries. I learn a lot on these boards about Christians who think-- and are therefore very much unlike the anti-science young-earth hate-mongers who seem ever more vocal in this part of the U.S. lately.
One thing, though--the Bible is hardly unchanged, or at least that's what I was told by a freind of mine who actually read Aramaic (or so I was led to believe: I don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, or ancient Greek, personally). He summarized the King James version as "very good for daily inspirational reading, but not for serious study."
Thanks. I've learned a lot from you and others as a result of this thread as well.
Quick thing regarding translations. As I understand it, the King James translation is one of the least accurate, true "translations" of the Bible. The New International Version is one of the best for "today's" language. The New American Standard Bible is one of the best for true word for word translations. There are a couple of other good ones out there, but the King James, while noble sounding, isn't the most "accurate".
And when I say "unchanged" I am talking about the writings that they go to in order to get our current translations.
Buddhism has a much cleaner sheet, provides a guide to a happy life, and hasn't been involved in any genocide. Why aren't all religious people buddhists?
Just as a guess, maybe because there's no automatic salvation through someone else. You have to do all the work yourself: all the meditation, all the daily practice, the constant development of your world-view. It's a lot of work.
Christianity, done correctly, involves a similar effort level, or so I would imagine. But it's often advertised as a "quick fix" (accept Jesus and be saved in one easy step!), so people assume it's like taking Lipitor for cholesterol, as opposed to the Buddhist approach of constantly working at your diet & exercise.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So those with the opportunity to hear the gospel will be judged "harsher" than those who were enver within 100 miles of someone proclaiming the gospel.
So, wouldn't people be better off if you didn't spread the message? After all, if I can get in to heaven by not knowing about Jesus, but if I know about him, I've got to take the extra step of saying thanks dude, I'm worse off for having known of Jesus.
Still seems like a particularly s*%*ty way to communicate your divine message. "God, why didn't you save me." "But I did. I told Joe, who told Stan, who told Fred about Jesus, and Fred told you." "But I thought Ron was telling the truth when he told me about Jebus!" "Yeah, Ron's always been kinda dumb, he screwed up my message. Sucks to be you."
Now one thing that was mentioned to me is that the Bible is the oldest document that shows evidence that it has remained unchanged throughout time. (One of the reasons why the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important.) The second oldest is the Koran. To me this is fairly significant. It tells me that while our interpretations of the Bible may change slightly throughout time, the actual scripture hasn't. While this also doesn't really mean that people should just start believing the Bible because it is the oldest unchanged document in existence, it is an interesting fact.
Has it really? What about all the omissions (intentional or not), the translations, and the interpretation between editions? Not to say that the bible is completelly different, but I feel that people saying that it has remained unchanged is like saying my 400 page copy of The Count of Monte Cristo in english is the same as the original french 1500 page vesion written in Alexandre Dumas' handwriting. Not everying is there, and it has changed with each translation.
Edit: I just finished reading Moff's answer to Kirth on this subject. My question is answered, but my comments are staying.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The difference is that science has gained new information, new theories, and new tools since those times. The Bible is the same document it ever was.Would you be more apt to believe the Bible if it kept changing every couple hundred years?
I'd be more apt to believe it if it was just correct in the first place and did not contradict, or at the very least acknowledged, the scientific record. I hold my divinely authored texts to a very high standard, some would say a standard of perfection.
And was available universally.
I have been saying "it just is", because when I say that I mean the phenomenon is observable. Is your god observable?
Sure, I certainly think so. Not quite in the same way, say, a flower is observable, but observable. Observations are entirely open to interpretation, though, and just as some people my debate the exact color of a flower (I know this is a poor analogy, bear with me), two people could have the same observation and only one beleives that it is God. Neither is wrong, just different in viewpoint.
Note that I don't really care about the metaphysical. I beleive in God solely because that is where my feelings have led me, and those same feelings lead me to beleive that the beleif in God is not important, just the observation.
The difference is that science has gained new information, new theories, and new tools since those times. The Bible is the same document it ever was.
Would you be more apt to believe the Bible if it kept changing every couple hundred years?
I'd be more apt to believe it if it was just correct in the first place and did not contradict, or at the very least acknowledged, the scientific record. I hold my divinely authored texts to a very high standard, some would say a standard of perfection.
This sounds completely arbitrary. Science was not accurate to begin with either, as several people have said. Perhaps people are just as right rejecting science, as it conflicts with thier religion, which does not keep changing every time some scientist has a question.
Just a thought.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This sounds completely arbitrary. Science was not accurate to begin with either, as several people have said. Perhaps people are just as right rejecting science, as it conflicts with thier religion, which does not keep changing every time some scientist has a question.Just a thought.
Science is merely the collected record of Man's observations of the natural world, subject to constant testing and revision to incorporate the data from said tests. The more observations and tests, the more accurate it becomes. Every answer given by science can, should, and is constantly tested and verified.
The Bible is (allegedly) the word of God. It is true and correct. Not only that, it is the sole path* to salvation. Testing and revision are not options (unless God wants to give us all a hand with that task). Given that, yeah, it had better be perfect and it had better provide sufficient guidance to actaully achieve salvation.
I don't think that's arbitrary at all. I don't expect a 6 year old to produce the same quality of work as da Vinci, and I don't ask that instructions to my VCR provide eternal comfort to my immortal soul.
Science is merely the collected record of Man's observations of the natural world, subject to constant testing and revision to incorporate the data from said tests. The more observations and tests, the more accurate it becomes. Every answer given by science can, should, and is constantly tested and verified.
I see your point. The goal of science is to inform to the best of its ability. But you propose it as an alternative to religion, so shouldn't it be held to the same standards you put on religion?
If everyone here spoke only from emotion, there would be no discussion: only babbling. What you call your "weak spot" is something this thread profits greatly from, in my estimation... especially because you seem to have enough intellectual understanding to raise some valid points.
Thank you. I'm really enjoying this discussion. I can't believe we've all actually had a civil religious discussion on the internet for 19 pages. I dont think anyone's even said the word "Hitler" ;)
Just a quick response to the mention of the crusades above - I thought the crusades were essentially a popular movement. People in medieval days were pretty passionate about their religion. I was under the impression that the crusades were far from being some sort of political war to get territory or something. They were essentially armies of zealous European knights who banded together to out-Christian each other by going and rescuing the birthplace of Jesus (which was of no strategic use to them at all) from the evil infidels. The main reason they failed was the same reason most popular movements motivated by religion fail: They were poorly organized and badly executed.
If anything I think the kings of Europe found the crusades an inconvenience, but everyone had to do them because the pope said so. The idea that the crusades had more to do with evil secular politics than they did with faith is an attempt by modern Christians to sweep inconvenient history under the rug.
Also, fair's fair: Check out these guys to see some violent Buddhists of history. (heh sounds like a TV show: "Tonight, on History's Most Violent Buddhists...")
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I see your point. The goal of science is to inform to the best of its ability. But you propose it as an alternative to religion, so shouldn't it be held to the same standards you put on religion?
I do not propose science as an alternative to religion; they have vastly different functions.
That being said, I would submit that, assuming the divine has perfect knowledge and authored a holy text, such text should not be contradicted by the collected observations of man. In other words, if man can figure it out, God should already know it.
So, if a holy text says "the sun orbits the earth" the observations of men should verify that statement. Note that I'm not even asking that the magical parts be verifiable (though they should be), I'm asking that to the extent a religious text says something that can be verified through observation of the natural world (e.g., there was a flood that killed most land creatures, all humans are descended from two humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc,) said religious text should accurately describe the verifiable fact.
To the extent that a religious text fails in this task, we can divine (no pun intended) that it is not of divine providence. Either that, or we're dealing with a falliable diety.
I see your point. The goal of science is to inform to the best of its ability. But you propose it as an alternative to religion, so shouldn't it be held to the same standards you put on religion?
Science is merely the collected record of Man's observations of the natural world, subject to constant testing and revision to incorporate the data from said tests. The more observations and tests, the more accurate it becomes. Every answer given by science can, should, and is constantly tested and verified.
Science never ever claimed to be perfect.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The other thing about science v. religion is the following:
You come up to me and say "Sebastian! The sun orbits the earth. I know this because I did the following experiment." I look at your data, I run the experiment, we discuss the issue, run some new experiments, and eventually we agree, the earth actually orbits the sun.
You come up to me and say "Sebastian! The sun orbits the earth. I know this because the magic cub scout manual says it, and the ancient magic cub scout wrote it, and it says here, he never lies." I show you the same data, I run the same experiments, we discuss the issue, but all we ever come to is you saying "Gee Sebastian, that sure is interesting, but the magical cub scout would never lie to me. Maybe you didn't perform the experiment right. I just haven't seen enough data to make up my mind."
Haven't read the Epic of Gilgamesh. But you're saying that the novel has remained word for word unchanged -- that's kind of cool.
Well, part if the reason is that it was a standard text for scriveners to practice on. But that perhaps owes to the fact that it was the Harry Potter of ancient Arabia, so to speak.
I disagree with this statement. There isn't any proof that there isn't a God.
Depends on how you define God. That said, there isn't any proof against a lot of things. Speculation is very important to expanding our horizons, but you can't live there.
BTW, have you read Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy?
Either way, it is still a matter of faith. If you can't determine what kind of "test" would "prove" God's existence, then I don't see how it is "evidence of absence".
I admit the question of existence/nonexistance is problematic, but we can test God's influence on the world. I don't see his hand in events.
(I don't think there's any point discussing the literalism of the Bible if no one here is arguing for it.)
And for many, many years science "proved" that the earth was flat.
and
Would you be more apt to believe the Bible if it kept changing every couple hundred years?
Science is a method for discerning knowledge, not any specific knowledge. The Bible makes a claim to specific knowledge, yet its only tool for discover knowledge is to ask God.
I've learned a lot from you and others as a result of this thread as well.
I've learned that Christian are very forgiving; vegetarians, not so much. ;-)
Note that I don't really care about the metaphysical. I beleive in God solely because that is where my feelings have led me, and those same feelings lead me to beleive that the beleif in God is not important, just the observation.
God as a concept, not as a copilot - I dig that.
That being said, I would submit that, assuming the divine has perfect knowledge and authored a holy text, such text should not be contradicted by the collected observations of man. In other words, if man can figure it out, God should already know it.
So, if a holy text says "the sun orbits the earth" the observations of men should verify that statement. Note that I'm not even asking that the magical parts be verifiable (though they should be), I'm asking that to the extent a religious text says something that can be verified through observation of the natural world (e.g., there was a flood that killed most land creatures, all humans are descended from two humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc,) said religious text should accurately describe the verifiable fact.
To the extent that a religious text fails in this task, we can divine (no pun intended) that it is not of divine providence. Either that, or we're dealing with a falliable diety.
I agree entirely with your thoughts, and think that the Bible and science do agree on just about everything. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that there are any significant disagreements.
Part of this is becasue they are answering fundamentally different questions.
Science for the most part is concerned with answering the How question. How does the World work?
Religion (and especially the Bible) however, is more concerend with the Why question. Why are we here?
So becasue they are answering two different questions, they often provide different answers, but those answers very rarely conflict.
I do beleive the Bible is the literal word of God. It is to be understood literally, and simply saying "taht part is metaphorical" is a cop out. But to understand somehting literally, you need to understand it in its context, both literally and theologically, and also understand it in its genre. So Narrative needs to be understood as narrative, poetry as poetry, statutues as statutes, history as history and so on.
This of course then opens the debate on whether somehting is poetry, history, narrative, etc, but most of the time it is pretty clear, and especially so with significant doctrines. The central theme of the Bible that we are all sinners deserving of God's wrath, who are saved only through the death and ressurection of the Lord Jesus Christ still comes through loud and strong.
Just a quick response to the mention of the crusades above - I thought the crusades were essentially a popular movement. People in medieval days were pretty passionate about their religion. I was under the impression that the crusades were far from being some sort of political war to get territory or something. They were essentially armies of zealous European knights who banded together to out-Christian each other by going and rescuing the birthplace of Jesus (which was of no strategic use to them at all) from the evil infidels. The main reason they failed was the same reason most popular movements motivated by religion fail: They were poorly organized and badly executed.
If anything I think the kings of Europe found the crusades an inconvenience, but everyone had to do them because the pope said so. The idea that the crusades had more to do with evil secular politics than they did with faith is an attempt by modern Christians to sweep inconvenient history under the rug.
Not quite true I am afraid, although very close. The crusades were launched by the Pope, as a means to "take back the holy land."
However, by this stage, I would hardly cal lthe Pope "Christian." He was more like any other politician of the time, motivated by the same things (power mostly), and He secured his ppost like any other (power and / or money).
As such, the crusades were launched for the political reason of the Pope, but were cloaked in the language of "spiritual warfare" to gain the support of the populace who, unable to read (or even afford) a Bile for themselves, were unable to test what they were taught by their Priests.
Those who supported the crusades, and waged them, were motivated by the same ideas as most anyone else who has ever waged a war, power, land, money and influence.
I am sorry, I do not off hand right now, what hte Pope's motivations in all this were, but I am convinced they were not for spiritual reasons, as they go completely against the Bible, and the land of Palestine and Jerusalem is no more "special" or sacred than any other piece of land.
So those with the opportunity to hear the gospel will be judged "harsher" than those who were enver within 100 miles of someone proclaiming the gospel.So, wouldn't people be better off if you didn't spread the message? After all, if I can get in to heaven by not knowing about Jesus, but if I know about him, I've got to take the extra step of saying thanks dude, I'm worse off for having known of Jesus.
Still seems like a particularly s#%*ty way to communicate your divine message. "God, why didn't you save me." "But I did. I told Joe, who told Stan, who told Fred about Jesus, and Fred told you." "But I thought Ron was telling the truth when he told me about Jebus!" "Yeah, Ron's always been kinda dumb, he screwed up my message. Sucks to be you."
I can see how you think it would be better to not spread the message at all, so it appears I wasn't clear in my first post, sorry.
The Bible isn't at all clear on what happens to those who have never heard the gospel. But do note that I didn't say they will be judged according to just what they KNOW, but what they have the OPPORTUNITY to know.
So basically there is NO excuse at all for most of those in the west, as they have had ample opportunity to hear the gospel and believe. Likewise for most of Africa, (where Christianity is thriving), and for large parts of Central and Southern America and Asia as well.
It may seem like a completley stupid way to communicate the message, but it is the way God has chosen to do it. I can't really say anything to change your mind here, (both becasue I have nothing more to say, and I doubt anything could actually change it.)
The Bible does say,
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!
And this is why Chrisitans work so hard on spreading the gospel. We do not exactly know what happens to those who never hear. The only way to have COMPLETE assurance of salvation is to trust in Jesus, and we want to tell as many people that as possible so they will be saved.
Not quite true I am afraid, although very close. The crusades were launched by the Pope, as a means to "take back the holy land."
However, by this stage, I would hardly cal lthe Pope "Christian." He was more like any other politician of the time, motivated by the same things (power mostly), and He secured his ppost like any other (power and / or money).
As such, the crusades were launched for the political reason of the Pope, but were cloaked in the language of "spiritual warfare" to gain the support of the populace who, unable to read (or even afford) a Bile for themselves, were unable to test what they were taught by their Priests.
Those who supported the crusades, and waged them, were motivated by the same ideas as most anyone else who has ever waged a war, power, land, money and influence.
I am sorry, I do not off hand right now, what hte Pope's motivations in all this were, but I am convinced they were not for spiritual reasons, as they go completely against the Bible, and the land of Palestine and Jerusalem is no more "special" or sacred than any other piece of land.
I have to disagree with you on that one mevers. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely the truth. I can't think of a good reason for the Pope to order anyone to take the holy land besides a religious one. You admitted that it wasn't special in any way, so why would he (and the crusaders) attempt it? If religion had nothing to do with it then why Jerusalem? Why not Moscow or Cairo or London? I think it's far more likely that they did it for the reasons they said they did, rather than that there was some wierd conspiracy which we can't even think of a good reason for.
Also, just because a medieval Christian's mindset wasn't the same as a modern Christian's doesn't mean they weren't Christians. They were just medieval Christians: They lived in a dark world where people were quite prepared to kill for what they believed in. So far in this very thread we've mentioned plenty of parts of the bible where God suggests people wage war on his behalf. All I'm saying is that medieval Christians placed more emphasis on those bits than a modern Christian finds comfortable. Doesn't mean they weren't Christians and to be honest I just don't get the way modern Christians look at the actions of their forbears in hindsight and say "oh, we wouldn't do that now so there's no way he was motivated by God." Will a future Christian be saying that about you in 500 years?
I could be wrong of course as I wasn't there at the time, but if we could be flies on the wall in medieval Rome I'd be willing to bet in a second that the Popes who ordered the crusades truly and deeply believed that they were doing what God wanted, and so did the knights who fought in them.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that all these people were rubbing their hands and thinking "how can we get our mits on this bleak strip of desert that is miles away from our kingdoms and still make it look like God's on our side?" I'm not saying that they weren't motivated by greed at all, I just think it's a bit of a cop out to say that that was the main reason when the simplest explanation is that they wanted the holy land for the glory of God because they thought He would want it to be in the hands of Christians, and anything else they could get was a well-deserved bonus.
Also, fair's fair: Check out these guys to see some violent Buddhists of history. (heh sounds like a TV show: "Tonight, on History's Most Violent Buddhists...")
Those guys were practically Christians! From the oft-cited Wikipedia: "Shinran saw the age he was living in as being a degenerate one where beings cannot hope to be able to extricate themselves from the cycle of birth and death through their own power. Due to his consciousness of human limitations, Shinran advocates reliance on tariki (Other Power) -- the power of Amida Buddha's limitless and infinite compassion made manifest in Amida Buddha's Primal Vow -- in order to attain liberation."
So, the founder threw out all the Buddha's teachings, instead relying on a Christ-like figure for salvation.
|
|
I have to disagree with you on that one mevers. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely the truth. I can't think of a good reason for the Pope to order anyone to take the holy land besides a religious one.
Mostly fear. They were afraid of the Muslims that were coming up through Spain. Rather than waging a direct war against the Muslims because they were scared of them, it gave them more of a focus to concentrate on. Either way, it was an excuse to wage a war.
|
|
A couple of quick points that I have been thinking on and then a longer post in a few...
Flood -- doing online searches for "evidence" of the flood or lack thereof seemed to only yield conflicting results. There seems to be scientific "evidence" that there was a flood. There seems to be scientific "evidence" that there wasn't a flood. When there is conflicting scientific "evidence", I hardly call that "evidence". I feel that this one comes down to a matter of faith and what you want to believe.
DNA -- I know a few people in this field that will probably answer this better for me, so I will try and check it out with them. I believe that it was in the early 90's that Discover scientifically "proved" that all humans came from one source -- an "Adam" so to speak. So when Sebastian suggested that there was scientific "proof" that all humans didn't come from one source, I was surprised. So I tried to do a search that came up empty either way, so I will try and ask people that are in the field. In either case, I couldn't find any evidence that showed that science had proven that humans didn't come from one genetic source, so I am uncertain what source Sebastian is getting information from. The difference between that and the Mormon issue is that science has proven that Native American Indians and Jews did not come from the same "stock" from the time frame that the Book of Mormon claims. That is a big difference that science not being able to prove whether or not we came from one "Adam".
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Flood -- doing online searches for "evidence" of the flood or lack thereof seemed to only yield conflicting results. There seems to be scientific "evidence" that there was a flood. There seems to be scientific "evidence" that there wasn't a flood. When there is conflicting scientific "evidence", I hardly call that "evidence". I feel that this one comes down to a matter of faith and what you want to believe.
There is no conflicting scientific evidence. The "scientific" evidence in support of the flood is religiously flavored and lacking in scientific rigor. If you were go to a gathering or archeological professors, they would laugh at the notion. If there were actual scientific evidence that the flood occurred, that would be scientific evidence proving that God exists because there is no way that the volume of water on the Earth could increase by such a magnitude as to cover all the land on Earth (particularly within a 40 day span of time), kill all the species, and then recede without intervention of a magical force. Particularly given that such an event would have occurred relatively recently in geological terms.
You can find some evidence of localized flood based catastrophes, but nothing on the scale of the Biblical flood. At least not from any reliable scientific source.
DNA -- I know a few people in this field that will probably answer this better for me, so I will try and check it out with them. I believe that it was in the early 90's that Discover scientifically "proved" that all humans came from one source -- an "Adam" so to speak. So when Sebastian suggested that there was scientific "proof" that all humans didn't come from one source, I was surprised. So I tried to do a search that came up empty either way, so I will try and ask people that are in the field. In either case, I couldn't find any evidence that showed that science had proven that humans didn't come from one genetic source, so I am uncertain what source Sebastian is getting information from. The difference between that and the Mormon issue is that science has proven that Native American Indians and Jews did not come from the same "stock" from the time frame that the Book of Mormon claims. That is a big difference that science not being able to prove whether or not we came from one "Adam".
I am well out of my scientific depth, but my understanding is that they can trace all humans back to a pool of 5-7 females. This is done by looking at the mitochondrial DNA, and there are only a few strains of said DNA in the entire human population. There isn't a reliable way to trace back to a single man, so I find it unlikely that there has ever been a record tracing people back to a single Adam.
|
|
I believe in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is true. I also believe in science. I also believe that if God is real and basically created everything, then he also created science. It just seems to me that if science doesn't match up with the Bible enough, then maybe we need to discover more science.
I like to surround myself with intelligent Christians. It makes conversations much more interesting (among other things). So I was talking with one of my friends about some of the items that have come up on this thread. I mentioned the creation in 7 days issue. He told me that he believed in the 7 24-hour days of creation. This floored me. This person always does his due diligence. He researches and researches and almost never makes a statement as clear-cut as that unless he has a LOT of information to back it up. He also said that the reason he believes this is because of what science has discovered. Needless to say, I was shocked. So I asked him what scientific evidence he had and he told me -- so I looked it up and now my thinking is really starting to change -- thank you science.
I have always had two big issues with the evolution theory. The problems surrounding macro-evolution and simply the formation of fossils. There has been no evidence surrounding macro-evolution (and that seems like a pretty big hole to me). Also with macro-evolution there are some things that don't make a lot of sense -- how does "survival of the fittest" work when going from rat to bat? As the creature's hands start to evolve, you get a creature that can't move fast, can't fly, can't really climb, is pretty much worthless, but seemed to be more fit to survive than the predators around it. And with fossils -- the formation of fossils seems to only be formed under extremely specific circumstances. And none of these circumstances seem to be currently happening -- until recently.
My friend told me about some research that has been done surrounding the Mount Saint Helens explosion. You can read about it
here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
A few things that I have found out doing a little bit of research on this
1) Here is an example of how fossilization can occur.
2) Here is an example of how strata layers can be formed.
3) Here is an example of how carbon dating rock layers can be found to be rather inaccurate at best and way, way off at worst.
Now a lot of creationists are trying to use this evidence to prove the flood. I have no idea about that. I don't think that I believe that the flood is the sole reason for the strata layers. Speaking of strata layers, I have always had a problem with that. Why are the strata layers so thick? Something had to happen to bury the creature quickly and create the layer of strata -- if it happened over millions of years, the skeletons would have decomposed and the "layer" should have been much less defined (as I understand it).
Here's what I think could have happened. And scientific "evidence" as I understand it supports this. Every time an animal group or species was created, there was a massive explosion (or 87 or 1,072) that buried them. And it happened again, and again, and again, until he was done. I feel that this explains the fossilization, the strata layers, the carbon dating, the lack of evidence of macro-evolution, among other things.
Was the account in Genesis literal or figurative? I don't know. I wasn't there. Could it have happened the way it said? Sure. How old is the Earth? I don't know. The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The Bible DOESN'T say that the earth was created on the first day -- that was light and darkness. The earth probably is millions of years old. Did "creation" actually happen in seven 24-hour periods? I don't know. But I also believe that carbon dating rock that is probably millions or billions of years old around a fossil and assume that the fossil is the same age can lead to some faulty conclusions.
What do I believe? I believe that the Bible is right -- whatever that means. I also look forward to the next scientific breakthrough.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If only we had a bunch of individuals who rigorously tested the scientific theories behind evolution, archeology, and geology. If only there were institutions to support these individuals, located around the world, in various countries free of a particular sociological bias. If only such theories were circulated for the express purpose of people challenging them with their own research and experiments. If only...
I guess if you want to believe those sources you can. You can also go to the Phillip J. Morris website and learn that there is no connection between smoking ciggarettes and cancer. You can go to the Truth foundation, or whatever the heck it's called, and learn that 9/11 was an inside job using patriot missiles. You can go to Flat Earth Society and learn the true shape of the planet.
Like I said in my earlier post, we're back to the magic cub scout manual saying one thing and the collected observations of mankind saying another thing. It's a worthless debate. Facts are facts, they can be tested and verified. Just because they don't agree with the magic cub scout manual does not mean they are inadequately tested, or not verified. It means that having the magic cub scout manual be right is more important than fidelity to reason, observations, and intelligence.
|
|
I guess if you want to believe those sources you can.
I looked for other sources to contradict this scientific evidence. I only found one item that held (in my opinion) a rather weak argument that never really addressed the questions at hand that the Mount St. Helens eruption brought up.
It means that having the magic cub scout manual be right is more important than fidelity to reason, observations, and intelligence.
Forget the Magic Cub Scout Manual for a minute. Here is scientific evidence that was observable, stands up to reason, and comes out of intelligence that goes against everything we have been taught to believe about dinosaurs, fossils, fossil fuel, evolution and so on. Why should current scientists believe this? It would show that much of what they believed to be true to be a lie. Yet I haven't seen any convincing argument that it isn't true. All that I've seen is "well it isn't true because it can't be true" or "well you can look at that if you want to, but I'm not going to look at that." It's like sticking fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la". Although, I think that a lot of Christians have done this same thing. It is just interesting to me that when we find out something that goes against what we believe that we often choose to turn a blind eye -- whether it is related to religion or not.
You say that I can believe those sources if I want to. I don't want to. I want to see hard scientific evidence that what they are saying about the Mount St. Helens explosion is false and why. I want to see hard factual data that the fossils are the same age as what the rock around it is suggesting. I want to see hard factual data that a strata layer in the rock represents millions of years. I don't want to believe those sources. I want to see both sides of the issue and make my own judgement call. Since especially with this issue there doesn't seem to be the "other" side, I am left with only the one side.
Show me the other side to refute the above and I will take a look at it with an open mind. What I want is for science to be right.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I looked for other sources to contradict this scientific evidence. I only found one item that held (in my opinion) a rather weak argument that never really addressed the questions at hand that the Mount St. Helens eruption brought up.
Your google foo skills are weak if you can't find a thousand articles specifically addressing the whole Mount St. Helens argument. Try a search for the terms: debunking creationist mount st. helens. There is this for starters:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Forget the Magic Cub Scout Manual for a minute. Here is scientific evidence that was observable, stands up to reason, and come out of intelligence that goes against everything we have been taught to believe about dinosaurs, fossils, fossil fuel, evolution and so on. Why should current scientists believe this? It would show that much of what they believed to be true to be a lie.
What, you mean like Einsteinian physics completely invalidated Newtonian physics? Scientists have debunked the various creationist arguments, including those against evolution. Again, and again, and again. It's not even a serious issue, the scientific evidence is significant, the scientific theories are robuts, and the creationist arguments don't hold up for longer than it takes to type up a response. It's like arguing with a 6 year old about the existence of Santa Clause. It doesn't matter how much evidence the scientific community brings to bear, you get crap like "well, these forests look like what you would find if there were actually millions of years of activity." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how science is conducted. They take a casual look, say "yup, sure looks like those trees are very old" and don't bother investigating anything else using any other tools.
Yet I haven't seen any convincing argument that it isn't true.
Because you have a vested interest in your conclusion much stronger than the scientific community's interest. If fossil fuels could be easily created, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the energy companies might be interested in that idea. It's not as if scientists sit down together like the Technocracy and say "we all think that the Earth is 10m years old" and then go and only uncover evidence to that effect.
All that I've seen is "well it isn't true because it can't be true" or "well you can look at that if you want to, but I'm not going to look at that." It's like sticking fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la". Although, I think that a lot of Christians have done this same thing. It is just interesting to me that when we find out something that goes against what we believe that we often choose to turn a blind eye -- whether it is related to religion or not.
It took me a single google search to unearth a trove of materials specifically challenging the scientific basis for creationist arguments. Who's sticking their fingers in their ears?
You say that I can believe those sources if I want to. I don't want to. I want to see hard scientific evidence that what they are saying about the Mount St. Helens explosion is false and why. I want to see hard factual data that the fossils are the same age as what the rock around it is suggesting. I want to see hard factual data that a strata layer in the rock represents millions of years. I don't want to believe those sources. I want to see both sides of the issue and make my own judgement call. Since especially with this issue there doesn't seem to be the "other" side, I am left with only the one side.
Then go read actual scienctific data or an actual scientific periodical instead of the creationist equivalent of the Phillip Morris website.
Show me the other side to refute the above and I will take a look at it with an open mind. What I want is for science to be right.
Why do I have to show you? All you have to do is open your eyes.