Questioning "literacy"

[jakobmuller]

I don't think that i am hearing this the right way, but could someone please help me to get this?

I don't get it when people try to say that the bible is true just because there are some historically true facts in there from the era.

I could write a book right now, that says all sorts of ridiculous silly things, such as: I have thirteen green ears, it rained jars of Vienna Sausage last Tuesday, and my dog can fly. Also, thrown in there are some true facts about my time period, like the fact that there is a fire hydrant on the corner of my street, about X number of people live in a certain city right now, and Italy is currently shaped like a boot.
Does the fact that some parts of the story are obviously correct make the entire thing automatically true, and should be obeyed unquestioningly by millions of people around the world for thousands of years to come?

I don't get why it's so amazing that the people who wrote the bible were alive when they wrote it, and had eyes to observe the world around them. I can think of about....6 billion people who fit those qualifications at the moment.

As a disclaimer, this is just the impression Ive gotten from some who argue the literacy of the bible.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't think that i am hearing this the right way, but could someone please help me to get this?

I don't get it when people try to say that the bible is true just because there are some historically true facts in there from the era.

I could write a book right now, that says all sorts of ridiculous silly things, such as: I have thirteen green ears, it rained jars of Vienna Sausage last Tuesday, and my dog can fly. Also, thrown in there are some true facts about my time period, like the fact that there is a fire hydrant on the corner of my street, about X number of people live in a certain city right now, and Italy is currently shaped like a boot.
Does the fact that some parts of the story are obviously correct make the entire thing automatically true, and should be obeyed unquestioningly by millions of people around the world for thousands of years to come?

I don't get why it's so amazing that the people who wrote the bible were alive when they wrote it, and had eyes to observe the world around them. I can think of about....6 billion people who fit those qualifications at the moment.

As a disclaimer, this is just the impression Ive gotten from some who argue the literacy of the bible.

Wow, your dog can fly?

On a more serious note, I'm not actually sure what you're asking. I suspect for a believer the historical accuracy of the events vindicates the authenticity of the Bible, which further provides reasonable belief to a believer that the supernatural events occurred. The thinking goes: if the recorded history is true, then why doubt the recorded events no matter how fantastic?

Of course, from an intellectual perspective you only prove the history, not the existence of a deity or miracles. However, it seems silly to try and prove a miracle in the first place. After all, it's a miracle. It's a once in a lifetime, never to be repeated event, that by definition defies the normal rules of nature . . .

[jakobmuller]

Wow, your dog can fly?

On a more serious note, I'm not actually sure what you're asking. I suspect for a believer the historical accuracy of the events vindicates the authenticity of the Bible, which further provides reasonable belief to a believer that the supernatural events occurred. The thinking goes: if the recorded history is true, then why doubt the recorded events no matter how fantastic?

Of course, from an intellectual perspective you only prove the history, not the existence of a deity or miracles. However, it seems silly to try and prove a miracle in the first place. After all, it's a miracle. It's a once in a lifetime, never to be repeated event, that by definition defies the normal rules of nature . . .

i think you get my drift :thumbs_up

It just seems very ridiculous to me to believe it as complete truth just because a few certain things have been proven true.

I just didn't know if that's actually how some people argue that the bible is true.

[RichardHresko]

I don't think that i am hearing this the right way, but could someone please help me to get this?

I don't get it when people try to say that the bible is true just because there are some historically true facts in there from the era.

I could write a book right now, that says all sorts of ridiculous silly things, such as: I have thirteen green ears, it rained jars of Vienna Sausage last Tuesday, and my dog can fly. Also, thrown in there are some true facts about my time period, like the fact that there is a fire hydrant on the corner of my street, about X number of people live in a certain city right now, and Italy is currently shaped like a boot.
Does the fact that some parts of the story are obviously correct make the entire thing automatically true, and should be obeyed unquestioningly by millions of people around the world for thousands of years to come?

I don't get why it's so amazing that the people who wrote the bible were alive when they wrote it, and had eyes to observe the world around them. I can think of about....6 billion people who fit those qualifications at the moment.

As a disclaimer, this is just the impression Ive gotten from some who argue the literacy of the bible.

I think you are referring to the idea that some people believe that the Bible should be understood literally. That is, that if the Bible says Methusaleh lived 969 years, then we should understand that to mean he literally lived 969 years.

This is entirely different from believing the Bible is true, or rather, Truth. This latter concept is based on the belief that the Bible is the direct communication of God to man. The factual content is, in this circumstance, of secondary importance. This is because God can use metaphors and other literary devices to convey His point.

[jakobmuller]

I think you are referring to the idea that some people believe that the Bible should be understood literally. That is, that if the Bible says Methusaleh lived 969 years, then we should understand that to mean he literally lived 969 years.

This is entirely different from believing the Bible is true, or rather, Truth. This latter concept is based on the belief that the Bible is the direct communication of God to man. The factual content is, in this circumstance, of secondary importance. This is because God can use metaphors and other literary devices to convey His point.

I can understand the metaphorical aspect of it, that makes sense. The lessons and his point are what is really being believed rather than word for word. I can wrap my head around that view relatively easily. I don't know about the opposite side, though. It'd be quite the stretch for me lol

[librarius_qui]

The bible isn't (only) history. It isn't only one book either. Nor one author only.

There are many sceptical people who try to base their faith in history to convince others, but it takes away the true power of its purpose and message.

It's said to be folly to some, and stumbling block to others ...
It's also said that it has to do with .. loving someone not seen.

Among other things.

Sometimes a man does get interested about the historical parts of it, and amazed to see that some things are historically proved, but the speech of a man not always says all the reasons of his faith. Faith that, however, he feels he should, somehow, defend and, hence, when finding (respected) History (science), and historical (or other scientific tools ...) to do it, to defend his faith, .. it may get him. No man is perfect. Most of us, though, are usually trying to show that we .. either are right, or that we drive our lives, or that we are happy that it is driven by superior instances ...

All men are subject, though, to "rain", to happiness or to disgrace, to defeat most of the times, to going through frustrations, to homework, to responsability, to consequences of our own acts ...

Once someone said that life has no moderator, for example, but it isn't so: there are government, laws, police ... Public servers.

Literacy ...

The future is odd to figure out. Thinking posterity is ... "easy", but thinking eternity? ...

And Isaiah lived about 500 years before the messiah. Daniel, a few hundred years before Greece and Rome.

So, history? It's part, as you say, of a writing.

However, no matter you ever wrote a book, what other kind of writers your writings would/will be joined with? In the future ... Do you write to the future?

(Does it matter?)

Writing is something that will remain after you and me. Unless, say .. the world ends, hit by a big rock, dust in the universe ... Like we are.

What then?

(Does it matter?)

Do you write?

Sometimes I do, myself. I did. Possibly I will again. For the moment, I take pictures of playmobil :rolleyes:

----

The bible is religious text. I think it's .. useful to remember this. Do you use it? What for? Do you know it? Why? Have you been brought up in a "Christian" home? What then? Does it make you 1. know?, 2. believe?, 3. disbelieve/doubt? ...

Don't you know it? If you don't, why does it worry you anyway?

Religious text.

Do you have any .. religion? Does any (religion) bother you?

Many questions.

Literacy ...

Religion.

History.
Science.

Anthropology.

Latin.

Greek & Hebrew.

2000 years gap.

Literacy? Literacy. It's a text, before anything, to those who read. Possibly the question might be other.

----

[RichardHresko]

I can understand the metaphorical aspect of it, that makes sense. The lessons and his point are what is really being believed rather than word for word. I can wrap my head around that view relatively easily. I don't know about the opposite side, though. It'd be quite the stretch for me lol


Some people have a hard time understanding that "fact" and "truth" are not necessarily the same thing, thus they need to insist on the factuality of the Bible.

As for accepting that the Bible is the transmitted word of God, that is perhaps no more hard to swallow than the idea that there is nothing that is true in an infinite (or finite but unbounded) universe that is incomprehensible to a primate.

Incredulity is in the mind of the beholder. Take your pick of which is more absurd, since, as they used to say, de gustibus non disputandum est.

[lichtrausch]

As for accepting that the Bible is the transmitted word of God, that is perhaps no more hard to swallow than the idea that there is nothing that is true in an infinite (or finite but unbounded) universe that is incomprehensible to a primate.


That's absurd. We have loads of evidence demonstrating that the laws of nature are true but not the slightest bit of evidence that the Bible is the transmitted word of god.

[backline]

...We have loads of evidence demonstrating that the laws of nature are true but not the slightest bit of evidence that the Bible is the transmitted word of god.


Oh I don't know.
Science may do a good job of describing geography and physics.

The Bible may be speaking to a different geography: that of the inner man. As a map of the territory of inner geography, it may make sense to some.

I believe the Bible to be a collection of early writings of oral traditions; some history; some poetry and symbology, etc.
To insist on taking parts of the bible literaly that are symbolic or epic can lead to conflict with science.

There are those who would argue that the "...evidence that the Bible is the transmitted word of god..." are those changed lives of persons who have glimpsed a meaning beyond physical geography.

It takes a detector circuit to apprehend radio waves. Instructions for building such a detector became available when my father was a boy.

Perhaps the Bible could be viewed by some as a set of instructions for building a spiritual detector circuit in your psyche.
Such people could claim to be picking up intelligible signals. To them that is evidence.

[lichtrausch]

Oh I don't know.
Science may do a good job of describing geography and physics.

The Bible may be speaking to a different geography: that of the inner man. As a map of the territory of inner geography, it may make sense to some.

I believe the Bible to be a collection of early writings of oral traditions; some history; some poetry and symbology, etc.
To insist on taking parts of the bible literaly that are symbolic or epic can lead to conflict with science.

There are those who would argue that the "...evidence that the Bible is the transmitted word of god..." are those changed lives of persons who have glimpsed a meaning beyond physical geography.

It takes a detector circuit to apprehend radio waves. Instructions for building such a detector became available when my father was a boy.

Perhaps the Bible could be viewed by some as a set of instructions for building a spiritual detector circuit in your psyche.
Such people could claim to be picking up intelligible signals. To them that is evidence.

Evidence is something which can be tested by anyone who so desires and found to be true. You or me or anyone can do an experiment on gravity and get the same exact result. Something which can only be viewed by one person is not evidence by any stretch of the word.

[RichardHresko]

That's absurd. We have loads of evidence demonstrating that the laws of nature are true but not the slightest bit of evidence that the Bible is the transmitted word of god.

The basic problem here is the question of evidence. What exactly constitutes evidence of divine transmission? What are the criteria? Are the criteria appropriate to the question at hand? On what basis do we decide appropriateness? (Not to mention other issues as to what divinity means, and what transmission entails.)

How exactly a question is framed often times determines the answer found.

The other end has some problems, too. The laws of nature found by science are not immutable. Nor were they intended to be. They are our latest summation of how we understand our experiences, and are subject to revision. See, for example, the explanation of gravity proposed by Newton and then amended by Einstein.

[subterranean]

The basic problem here is the question of evidence. What exactly constitutes evidence of divine transmission? What are the criteria? Are the criteria appropriate to the question at hand? On what basis do we decide appropriateness? (Not to mention other issues as to what divinity means, and what transmission entails.)

How exactly a question is framed often times determines the answer found.

The other end has some problems, too. The laws of nature found by science are not immutable. Nor were they intended to be. They are our latest summation of how we understand our experiences, and are subject to revision. See, for example, the explanation of gravity proposed by Newton and then amended by Einstein.

I basically agree with your point of view. This old aged debate seems to be pointless. One can not prove the existence of divine being and the other can not prove its non existence.

[The Atheist]

I don't get it when people try to say that the bible is true just because there are some historically true facts in there from the era.

Which historical parts of the bible are factual?

Other than places and their names, there is very, very little archaeological evidence that any part of the bible is factual.


I don't get why it's so amazing that the people who wrote the bible were alive when they wrote it, and had eyes to observe the world around them. I can think of about....6 billion people who fit those qualifications at the moment.

It's even more important to realise that up until Saulus, there aren't any eyewitness accounts anyway. It's all recordings of what someone else said/did.


As a disclaimer, this is just the impression Ive gotten from some who argue the literacy of the bible.

I think the word you're looking for is "inerrancy".

Some people still believe the Cottingley Fairies are real as well.

I trust the previous posts have shown you the difference between those who think the bible contains truth to those who think it's literally true. They are two different types of christianity, with the literalists by far the smaller group.

[lichtrausch]

The basic problem here is the question of evidence. What exactly constitutes evidence of divine transmission?


A video recording would do. Or a divine transmission that could be observed by an independent body of scientists.



What are the criteria? Are the criteria appropriate to the question at hand? On what basis do we decide appropriateness? (Not to mention other issues as to what divinity means, and what transmission entails.)


I think we all have a pretty good idea of what a divine transmission would consist of were it to happen. We've all seen various examples of it in the media throughout our life.



The other end has some problems, too. The laws of nature found by science are not immutable. Nor were they intended to be. They are our latest summation of how we understand our experiences, and are subject to revision. See, for example, the explanation of gravity proposed by Newton and then amended by Einstein.

Agreed, except I don't see where the problem is. Seems like a pretty good system to me.


I basically agree with your point of view. This old aged debate seems to be pointless. One can not prove the existence of divine being and the other can not prove its non existence.

Actually that debate was settled long ago with this point: there are tons of things that I can't prove don't exist but that doesn't give us any reason to believe in them. I can't prove to you that there is no alien invasion fleet hiding behind Jupiter but that doesn't give you or me any reason to believe that there actually is such a thing. The burden of proof lies with those who make claims of supernatural existence.

[RichardHresko]

A video recording would do. Or a divine transmission that could be observed by an independent body of scientists.



I think we all have a pretty good idea of what a divine transmission would consist of were it to happen. We've all seen various examples of it in the media throughout our life.

.

But here is precisely the rub: to require a material proof of a non-material event phenomenom is a confusion of types.

If one refuses to accept that non-material phenomena exist unless they provide material proofs then one is merely preserving the form of being open-minded but has already pre-judged the matter. If the person is content that within the system of thought that requires all phenomena to have physical manifestations there is no proof of anything non-material and concludes thereby that there are no non-material objects based on the consistency of his position he can rest happily that there will be no contradiction. That's the nice part of taking a tautological position.

The only problem is that it is ultimately a sterile position.

[lichtrausch]

The only problem is that it is ultimately a sterile position.

What do you mean by this?

[backline]

...The burden of proof lies with those who make claims of supernatural existence.


Seems like an inflammatory thing to state at a Religious Texts portion of this site.
What's your gripe, exactly?

[lichtrausch]

Seems like an inflammatory thing to state at a Religious Texts portion of this site.
What's your gripe, exactly?

I thought I was stating something that we could all agree on. I have no gripes.

[BienvenuJDC]

A video recording would do. Or a divine transmission that could be observed by an independent body of scientists.


Evolution has never been observed by anyone, yet so many believe it as fact. There's not a missing link. The whole chain is missing.

[JuniperWoolf]

Evolution has never been observed by anyone, yet so many believe it as fact. There's not a missing link. The whole chain is missing.

Taxonomy is pretty messed up too. It's constantly changing, no one can seem to aggree on anything. Also, the explination for the origin of life that I was told in my bio class is so full of holes that its laughable. So many things "spontaneously happened." Following science without question is as foolish as following religion. The only thing that you can ever know for sure is that you don't know anything for sure.

[lichtrausch]

Evolution has never been observed by anyone, yet so many believe it as fact. There's not a missing link. The whole chain is missing.


Taxonomy is pretty messed up too. It's constantly changing, no one can seem to aggree on anything. Also, the explination for the origin of life that I was told in my bio class is so full of holes that its laughable. So many things "spontaneously happened." Following science without question is as foolish as following religion. The only thing that you can ever know for sure is that you don't know anything for sure.

Evolution is one of the most well understood and proven phenomena in nature. I invite you both to have a look through the meticulously researched and cited article on evolution in Wikipedia.

[BienvenuJDC]

Evolution is one of the most well understood and proven phenomena in nature. I invite you both to have a look through the meticulously researched and cited article on evolution in Wikipedia.

For intelligence to come from non-intelligence...
......life to come from non-life...
......matter to come from no matter...

This is a scientific impossibility. No evidence to prove this...or even to support it.

[librarius_qui]

The basic problem here is the question of evidence. What exactly constitutes evidence of divine transmission? What are the criteria? Are the criteria appropriate to the question at hand? On what basis do we decide appropriateness? (Not to mention other issues as to what divinity means, and what transmission entails.)

How exactly a question is framed often times determines the answer found.

The other end has some problems, too. The laws of nature found by science are not immutable. Nor were they intended to be. They are our latest summation of how we understand our experiences, and are subject to revision. See, for example, the explanation of gravity proposed by Newton and then amended by Einstein.

The question of transmission, in the teaching of the christ, has to do with spirit, and meaning of spirit. (One can define spirit as meaning, but, for the followers of the messiah, it's a(n intelligent) person ...)

As for science, as you said yourself, what we know isn't precise: Newton possibly died thinking it was enough. But people found other questions later. Each time science (men) make a discovery, we also find out that there is something beyond that. It's a ladder from an unknown past, to the infinite above ... steps are circumstance. (The Greeks thought a lot of things about the world/universe/"creation", that were quite accepted before Galileo and Kopernik ...)


@ atheist

Acheological data isn't that little. It's been found inscriptions of a king called David, of other kings. There are sites for cities, for places related to narratives, even to the famous ark. If you search in the internet, you will find a lot of things ... My question to an atheist -- I say so having been one, from craddle and reassured in youth -- is: do you wish to search?, or simply to question? To me, I only wished (and liked, a lOt, to question only, and questioning never has an ending). If, someday, you stumble upon something that makes you have no doubt that a god is speaking to you .. lo! If not, it's only question, and the bible says what it says about questioning in Corintians I, so, it's useless to simply question.~

If you make me a question, sorry if I do not give you an answer. I'll only take the effort of answering when it's interesting. I shouldn't even have commented on what you wrote, because I find it useless: it won't change you. And it isn't meant to. I'm talking about my knowledge. I doubt you agree with what I said. Or that you'll try to search.----

[lichtrausch]

For intelligence to come from non-intelligence...
......life to come from non-life...
......matter to come from no matter...

This is a scientific impossibility. No evidence to prove this...or even to support it.

I see you chose not to read the article...

[The Atheist]

Evolution has never been observed by anyone, yet so many believe it as fact. There's not a missing link. The whole chain is missing.

That is wrong in every respect.

We have indeed observed evolution in action and there are no chains missing at all.

Lots of individual speciation evidence is missing, but given the minute percentage of dead animals which ever become fossils, it's not that surprising that the fossil record is incomplete.


Taxonomy is pretty messed up too. It's constantly changing, no one can seem to aggree on anything.

Two more fallacies. Taxonomy isn't messed up at all, and the vast majority of botanists agree on almost all parts of known evolution.

The fact that minor changes happen to the theory is one of its strengths - it isn't a hard and fast theory, but a work in progress, with more information being added all the time, just as yesterday's lemur/ape in Germany adds another piece of information.


Also, the explination for the origin of life that I was told in my bio class is so full of holes that its laughable.

I'd love to meet your biology teacher, because he/she shouldn't be teaching if s/he wasn't able to adequately understand the simple process of natural selection.

Holes, as I've admitted, exist, but none is anything like terminal to the theory. The gaps are nowadays quite insubstantial in most cases.


So many things "spontaneously happened."

Could you please expand upon this, because as far as I'm aware, very few things in history have ever happened spontaneously, and evolution doesn't record any. There may have been some seeming spontaneity at the abiogenesis stage, but as I often tell people, not having complete evidence of an event ~4 billion years ago is no real shame.


Following science without question is as foolish as following religion. The only thing that you can ever know for sure is that you don't know anything for sure.

Following anything without question is stupid, but luckily, almost no scientists fall into that trap.


Evolution is one of the most well understood and proven phenomena in nature. I invite you both to have a look through the meticulously researched and cited article on evolution in Wikipedia.

Or:

www.talkorigins.com

www.skepticwiki.com

or one of many other well-researched sources of information from a scientific perspective.

(Well said)


For intelligence to come from non-intelligence...
......life to come from non-life...
......matter to come from no matter...

This is a scientific impossibility.

Well, we do have some evidence, and it's been gained by observation and study of data.

As it stands, we have two serious choices as to why life arose:

1 - it arose through a not-fully understood process called abiogenesis. A great example of this is a box of corn flakes. If you do absolutely nothing to it - just leave it sitting in your cupboard - and open it after a year, the top will be full of whole flakes and all the dust will be at the bottom. Nature sorts itself into patterns and shapes without magic. Crystals form, chains of protein reproduce automatically. We know these things because we have electrol microscopes and can observe non-live material doing just that; replicating.

2 - Goddidit.

You seem to be making rhetorical generalisations without really knowing what you're talking about.


@ atheist

Acheological data isn't that little. It's been found inscriptions of a king called David, of other kings. There are sites for cities, for places related to narratives, even to the famous ark.

Nope, you need to take note of earlier posts. Using existing place names is not archaelogical evidence.

That which could be archaeologically proven or disproven generally shows scripture to be wrong - Jericho, for example. It didn't even exist when the bible said it did, having been sacked long beforehand.

As to the ark - there is no archaeological or geological evidence that says that a flood happened, and all geological evidence shows that it can't have happened.

You'll need to be far more specific, because so far, you're just wrong.


If you search in the internet, you will find a lot of things ...

Yes, and vast amounts of it are absolutely false.


My question to an atheist -- I say so having been one, from craddle and reassured in youth -- is: do you wish to search?, or simply to question?

I don't think it's either search or asking questions are the right description; it's more of an attitude of wanting to know and picking up data along the way.

[NikolaiI]

Don't like... fruit flies lose their vision in only a couple of generations without light?

[ShoutGrace]

Seems like an inflammatory thing to state at a Religious Texts portion of this site.
What's your gripe, exactly?

I didn't find it inflammatory. It is a proposition which should be scrutinized, and which should stand or fall based on merit.

And what do gripes have to do with it? lichtrausch was engaging a point brought up by another poster (with a relevant comment, no less).


I thought I was stating something that we could all agree on. I have no gripes.


Actually that debate was settled long ago with this point: there are tons of things that I can't prove don't exist but that doesn't give us any reason to believe in them. I can't prove to you that there is no alien invasion fleet hiding behind Jupiter but that doesn't give you or me any reason to believe that there actually is such a thing. The burden of proof lies with those who make claims of supernatural existence.

This is interesting for me, because I once wrote elsewhere on this site:

The atheist is not required to disprove God – atheism originated as a reaction against theism. Why would one postulate that there were no gods if the concept of gods didn’t already exist?

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” - Bertrand Russell

It is very difficult (though obviously not impossible) to prove a negative. We cannot say with certainty that there is no teapot so small that it cannot be detected - but we have just as little reason to believe that, the atheist would say, as we have to believe in gods. The burden of proof weighs upon the one who shifts away from skepticism (the default position), because at that point a positive knowledge claim is being introduced.

I now think (with reference to the last sentence) that the question is more subtle and demands greater attention.


Taxonomy is pretty messed up too. It's constantly changing, no one can seem to aggree on anything.

That seems to be the nature of science, and the force which drives it ever forward.


Also, the explination for the origin of life that I was told in my bio class is so full of holes that its laughable.

I would recommend looking towards what the most brilliant and learned have to say on any subject.


Following science without question is as foolish as following religion.

I agree emotionally (and, I daresay, spiritually) with regard to the question of scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism). Science must be recognized and reckoned with, however, and to be ignorant of what science has to tell us is, I should think, tragic, and a loss of part of the grandeur of human nature.


The only thing that you can ever know for sure is that you don't know anything for sure.

The fact that this proposition is illogical should clue us in to the fact that it is false.

[librarius_qui]

@ atheist

You're probably right.~

[RichardHresko]

What do you mean by this?

Note for clarity, Lichtrausch is asking me what I meant by the sentence, "The only problem is that it is ultimately a sterile position."

This is referring to my comment that tautological positions are sterile.

Tautologies are sterile because they can not produce new knowledge. First, let's consider a trivial example. By definition bachelors are unmarried males. My then making a statement that unmarried males are bachelors is tautological, since there is nothing in the second statement that wasn't in the first statement. The second statement is, of course, true by definition, but that is pretty much besides the point. The conclusion is built into the definition.

The reason the statement that 'non-material entities can not exist is because they can not be observed the way material entities can be' is tautological is that the definition of existence is built into the method of testing. The process runs something like this:

1) material things exist (an assumption about what sensory data tells us)
2) I can observe (have physical interaction with) material things
3) By definition the only things that can exist are those things I can have physical actions with.

Step 3 is where the believers (since it is, after all, only a belief based on personal inclination and not provable) in radical materialism get into trouble and the tautology gets built in. Their conclusion is built into the definition. Notice that given the definition in 3 the only way a non-material entity can be found to exist is if it is discovered to be in fact something with physical attributes, and therefore not really non-material at all.

Then one goes on to:
4) I do not observe (can not have a physical interaction with) non-physical things.

Statement 4 is perfectly fine. But now the tautology in step 3 is invoked to lead us to:
5) therefore non-physical things do not exist by definition

A more tenable conclusion would be:

5') The existence of non-physical entities is not provable by physical interaction.

[backline]

...Goddidit...


Interesting word. Verb?
Oh wait, past tense.

Not sure which Religious text I've seen this in, though it seems maybe to have been claimed in the book of Genesis, of the Bible. Is this a new translation, or an interpretation?

I should like to offer an interpretation of Genesis:

Suppose each statement or claim in the Bible, especially Genesis, was precluded by the preposition (adverb): "As-if..."

Would not the text then become more anthropological and useful?

It's an observation of reality as seen by ancient peoples, of an oral tradition, that has since been codified and handed down through the ages, including multiple language changes.
Yet, the text can still speak to contemporary man in terms of symbols. A mountain is still a mountain, etc.

Often, I've thought of the Garden of Eden symbology in terms of coming of age literature.

Once we say, "as-if," it breaks the stranglehold of having to accept Biblical text as fundamentally having to be apprehended literally at each lesson's crossroads.
Even if a person wishes to interpret the text literally as 100% having happened exactly as described (difficult, given the ages and translations), they are free to do so personally, and haven't hurt anybody.

Scientific inquirey does not traffic in "as-if's."
It is not symbolic (except for the periodic table of elements, various charts, statistics, etc etc). Oh wait. Maybe it does in some ways.

OK. See my point? We have a language issue compounding a belief system issue.

There are those even in science must resort to the preposition "as-if" in their work too.

It becomes a matter of communication and degrees.

The scientific minded do not like "as-if" in their rhetoric, yet on some levels it must exist (or an aspirin doesn't do anything demonstrable and repeatable).
But observe the right to say to the Theologian: "No as-if's: demonstrate!"

There are portions of each discipline which will not be effectively demonstrable to the other. That is based on orientational preferences.

I submit for discussion.

[The Atheist]

Interesting word. Verb?
Oh wait, past tense.

Not sure which Religious text I've seen this in, though it seems maybe to have been claimed in the book of Genesis, of the Bible. Is this a new translation, or an interpretation?

I should like to offer an interpretation of Genesis:

Suppose each statement or claim in the Bible, especially Genesis, was precluded by the preposition (adverb): "As-if..."

Would not the text then become more anthropological and useful?

Not that I can see, no.

Most churches treat at least the OT as allegorical rather than factual, so it's pretty hard to argue any biblical points and putting an "if" in front won't solve the issue.


It's an observation of reality as seen by ancient peoples, of an oral tradition, that has since been codified and handed down through the ages, including multiple language changes.

Nope - as far as the OT goes, it's 100% hearsay. None of it was written contemporaneously and no observation of reality was involved. We know the latter for sure as we know there was no great flood, and we know that the first humans weren't 6000 years ago, but ~1,000,000.


Yet, the text can still speak to contemporary man in terms of symbols. A mountain is still a mountain, etc.

As can Harry Potter.


Scientific inquirey does not traffic in "as-if's."
It is not symbolic (except for the periodic table of elements, various charts, statistics, etc etc). Oh wait. Maybe it does in some ways.

And a lot of it uses the "as if" before starting testing. That's why TNT was invented and the inventor lived to tell the tale.

[Nightshade]

I am not getting involved in a discussion on evolution, Id also point out that such a topic is straying from the OP. But I will say this:

I invite you both to have a look through the meticulously researched and cited article on evolution in Wikipedia.
There are a lot of authoritative texts and books on evolution plenty of things out there to refer people to but wikipedia is never ever ever by any stretch of good sense a candidate for consideration as a reliable source. Using a wiki article can undermine your whole argument, simply by being.

Carry on folks, but don't forget to breathe, and smile!

[lichtrausch]

I am not getting involved in a discussion on evolution, Id also point out that such a topic is straying from the OP. But I will say this:

There are a lot of authoritative texts and books on evolution plenty of things out there to refer people to but wikipedia is never ever ever by any stretch of good sense a candidate for consideration as a reliable source. Using a wiki article can undermine your whole argument, simply by being.

Carry on folks, but don't forget to breathe, and smile!

You seem to have an unfounded bias against Wikipedia. I challenge you to find a single error or inconsistency in the wiki article on evolution.

[Nightshade]

Ok, Its not that that particular article is wrong, its that wiki as a whole is unreliable, due to factors implicit in its nature. Namley the fact that it is a wiki. There is no reliability, peer review, consitancy, acknowledge authorship or responsibility, referancing citations and sourcing is shoddy ( I am talking across the board with wikipedia, not with this single article). IN fact I could go in there and chnage just the odd word and destroy the whole article. And because it is just the odd word chances are it would get missed, when whoever the powers that be are that control wikipedia do their modding.

Now there is no denying that there are good articles on wikipedia, it's just that they are overshadowed by the promblems and junk. So that in all Wikipedia should never be citied as an academically correct, reliable Source. It all realtes to information litearcy the plagurism debate and reliability of information use.
:D

[Eryk]

Ok, Its not that that particular article is wrong, its that wiki as a whole is unreliable, due to factors implicit in its nature. Namley the fact that it is a wiki. There is no reliability, peer review, consitancy, acknowledge authorship or responsibility, referancing citations and sourcing is shoddy ( I am talking across the board with wikipedia, not with this single article). IN fact I could go in there and chnage just the odd word and destroy the whole article. And because it is just the odd word chances are it would get missed, when whoever the powers that be are that control wikipedia do their modding.

Now there is no denying that there are good articles on wikipedia, it's just that they are overshadowed by the promblems and junk. So that in all Wikipedia should never be citied as an academically correct, reliable Source. It all realtes to information litearcy the plagurism debate and reliability of information use.
:D


Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
..........

[Bark]

I just want to address the initial question.

The Bible is as literal as any other book of poetry. Remember Hebrew is a mathematic language. Meter and rhyme are key, and numbers are loosely interpreted. If you line up the story of creation and the story of the big bang, give me two differences. I can give you one; timeframes. other than that I am at a loss.

Darkness then light---Big bang is space.
Atmosphere
waters recede---------ice caps form
Animals of the water----------sea life
Beast of the land----------dinosauruses
Adam came first to name the animals----------------y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA show man came first
woman----woman
The ability to reason and love god-----------Anatomically modern human is defined by the frontal lobe

What is missing?

Now as to time frames. X lived 845 years and bore Y children.
Easy enough, how many calendars do we use today? They had a different one. And further 60 kids? Polygamy.

Miracles? Tell me, today is there any more noted people for exaggeration than the Jew? Don't get mad, I think the Jew is one of the supreme cultures.

Also saints, for Catholics? One guy was beatified for never showering as an act of submission to God.

What else do you want?

[Bark]

Dont assume the education was as good back then. The intelligence was. I think the guys who wrote the Bible got it right, they would have gotten it righter if they had vast stroes of datafiles and archives to dig through like we do today. What is taught today as common knowlege, ie evolution. Was back then mysticism and philosophy based on logic, and they got it right on that account.

[The Atheist]

Ok, Its not that that particular article is wrong, its that wiki as a whole is unreliable, due to factors implicit in its nature.

As noted, Wikipedia has proven to be as accurate as any other encyclopedia, and more accurate than most. Yes, it is occasionally attacked, but in miniscule amounts compared to content.

Also, just a note for all - I'm about to start a Serious Cat Discussion on evolution, since it is a pretty serious subject, but has nothing at all to do with religion.

Edited: Now open! (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=724697#post724697)


I just want to address the initial question.

The Bible is as literal as any other book of poetry. Remember Hebrew is a mathematic language. Meter and rhyme are key, and numbers are loosely interpreted. If you line up the story of creation and the story of the big bang, give me two differences. I can give you one; timeframes. other than that I am at a loss.

Darkness then light---Big bang is spac
Atmosphere
waters recede---------ice caps form
Animals of the water----------sea life
Beast of the land----------dinosauruses
Adam came first to name the animals----------------y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA show man came first
woman----woman
The ability to reason and love god-----------Anatomically modern human is defined by the frontal lobe

What is missing?

Damn near everything.

Funnily enough, I have a piece on just that subject, right here (http://www.charman.co.nz/essays/genesis.htm).

[NikolaiI]

I think a Wiki article on something like evolution has a higher chance of being academically sound, as it is a very contended issue... Since there's so much tension aroudn the issue, it results in a good article on Wiki. People who care about it, and care enough to research it well, probably wrote that article.

[librarius_qui]

...


I don't think it's either search or asking questions are the right description; it's more of an attitude of wanting to know and picking up data along the way.

(Perhaps as you get older as an atheist ... I left atheism when I was 21.

As you get old, things probably change. To me, I was brought up with questioning.)

[Bark]

look, we all make decisions about our soul, maybe I'm not so versed in astrophysics as you, granted I avoid wiki and maybe should not seeing as how it is such a reliable source, but if I was to explain what I thought something supernatural was, and then along comes science thousands of years later and they say I was wrong, I'd be ok, especially if I saw how much lined up. Now, I will not try to pass over that I know more than what I do about astrophysics, but damned ifn't I don't know poetry.

We agree to disagree I guess. Poetry cant be quantified lie science, without the understanding that the bible is poetry there is little reason to argue it.

[The Atheist]

(Perhaps as you get older as an atheist ... I left atheism when I was 21.

As you get old, things probably change. To me, I was brought up with questioning.)

I'm sure there's some genetics involved, because I was brought up to believe and have faith, but as early as double-figures, I decided to use critical thinking.

40 years on and I've seen no reason to change from it. One man's meat and all that.


Poetry cant be quantified lie science, without the understanding that the bible is poetry there is little reason to argue it.

That's fine, and I have no problem with the bible as an allegorical document, some of it's very good; I'm having a discussion on a christian board right now asking christians to explain how the WWJD principle results in support for capital punishment.

It's only because the bible gets compared to scientific fact that I bother.

[Bark]

Thats a good question. an honest one too. How is it going?

But see the comaprisons are drawn by those who have a vested interest in science to the exculsion of religion and vice versa. One should embrace both, in my humble opinion.

[JuniperWoolf]

I wasn't doubting natural selection, I was talking about the origin of life, ie. how the very first cells came to be cells. I'll post more when I have time.

[The Atheist]

Thats a good question. an honest one too. How is it going?

Well, I haven't had an answer to it yet, so I'll let you know if I do!


But see the comaprisons are drawn by those who have a vested interest in science to the exculsion of religion and vice versa. One should embrace both, in my humble opinion.

I don't have a problem embracing some of the morality from the bible, there aren't many sources of it in the complexity of human society, and I don't think science and religion cross lines at all - science is about fact, religion's about opinion.


I wasn't doubting natural selection, I was talking about the origin of life, ie. how the very first cells came to be cells. I'll post more when I have time.

Bring it to the evolution thread I linked to above.

[subterranean]

(Perhaps as you get older as an atheist ... I left atheism when I was 21.


And when did you come in to it?

[Bark]

Oh God, Cellular evolution? You can own that argument. I like to paint with broad strokes.

I used to be an athiest too, but what I realized is that I gotta blame this **** on something. If I blame all the ills of the world on society, and society will be the factor to give the rest of societies, it seems hopelessly sad. But with God it is different. And further it gives me an excuse. "Why are you such an idiot?" "God made me this way" :P

[librarius_qui]

I'm sure there's some genetics involved, because I was brought up to believe and have faith, but as early as double-figures, I decided to use critical thinking.

40 years on and I've seen no reason to change from it. One man's meat and all that.



One thing I thank my god for my atheist raising is [self]critical thinking and judgement.
I criticize myself a lot. It's the only way to look around, and figure out what might be changed.

"One man's meat" ... It sounds familiar to me. But I'm not sure I get what you meant.~



And when did you come in to it?

I was born an atheist. Both father and mother brought me up as such.~

[The Atheist]

"One man's meat" ... It sounds familiar to me. But I'm not sure I get what you meant.~

Old saying, one man's meat is another man's poison - what one likes another may not.

[librarius_qui]

I'm sure there's some genetics involved, because I was brought up to believe and have faith, but as early as double-figures, I decided to use critical thinking.

40 years on and I've seen no reason to change from it. One man's meat and all that.




Old saying, one man's meat is another man's poison - what one likes another may not.

Right. No, I hand't understand what you meant (didn't know the saying :rolleyes: )

I'm not sure about the genetics of the matter. My children (if ever I come to have any ...) will let me know that.

The case seems to be that you (like most atheists I know) are exactly inverse case as I. I used to be atheist, was brought up as an atheist, in atheism, and I went into faith in a god. Most atheists I know come from some sort of religious background, and became atheists because it's more coherent to them, or some other rational explaination (such as they cannot prove that there is a god).

So either you as well as myself, stand, in a simple point of view, against the way we've been brought up, by family.

Our children will say whether it's "genetic" (or "social", as I understand better), or not, and in which case it is so or not. For example, if an atheist's son decides for atheism, and holds in it, all his life, even after having questioned his up bringing, he isn't simply being influenced by a will of being different from his father/mother or both. If a child of a guy like me, for example, turns back to atheism (and remains an atheist even after I die), it's a good percentage of chance that my faith will have been mere rebelion to my up bringing. (Even if not.) On the other hand, if my children decide to follow the same god as I, I will have been successful in my life and faith. If they choose for another faith (Hiduism, or any other god(s)), then I will have failed. Or if they choose for atheism, of agnosticism, all the same, I'll have been unsuccessful ...

(If a child of an atheist decides to choose a god ... well, it was my case.)

If a child of an atheist is brought up as an atheist, in atheism, and confirms his faith in atheism (or his lack of faith in a god, or gods), his father's up bringing will have been efficient.

Who's right or wrong? It isn't the matter here.---

I question myself many times, to see to which point I have faith in the god I came to meet, along the way of my life, or if I'm merely being "rebel" against my up bringing.

It's been 10 years with a god, so, I still can't (in a rational way) defend anything. (I can only defend my faith by faith, which excludes any reasonable argument. It's mere faith, and there's no other way of supporting it.)

(And, in my case, it isn't my old man's meat ... :D )

[Jozanny]

I don't think that i am hearing this the right way, but could someone please help me to get this?

I don't get it when people try to say that the bible is true just because there are some historically true facts in there from the era.

Though I will try to say away from headlong metaphysical arguments, because both the truth values of spirituality and hard materialism will always remain at loggerheads, Biblical literalism is problematic simply by the virtue of translating ancient Hebrew into modern English. I am no expert, but there is a long and turbulent struggle between church authoritarianism and even getting to the King James version of the Bible, much of which is indebted to Tinsdale, who lived the life of a fugitive simply because he wanted to give the common man access to religious texts.

Current Catholic teaching cautions against literalism, and focuses mostly on moral lessons, both in the OT and the NT, but thematically, I see the Judeo-Christian narrative as one steeped in the Semitic worldview of moral guilt. A quick example would be the *sin* of David in coveting Bathsheba during his military campaign to make the original Israeli state a regional power. The chronicler was only interested in David's military success as it relates to his moral purity. The fact that he lost a battle or two against the enemy had little to do with tactical errors, and everything to do with the fact that he slept with Uriah's wife, after conveniently getting Uriah felled in the front lines.

This isn't history so much as history plotted according to the sanction or lack thereof, of Yahweh. Do I believe in this moral prescription? No, I don't think Israel rose or fell due to their moral guilt against their deity--but I am willing to buy that the Jewish state had a very brief Golden Age between the rise of Saul and the death of Solomon.

The NT is a little different, but in some parts obviously affected by Gnosticism, an interesting heresy, at least to my amusement.

But in short, literalism always falls prey to the amorphous nature of language itself.

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure about the genetics of the matter. My children (if ever I come to have any ...) will let me know that.

No, I don't mean that atheists and theists are genetically different; I was referring to the method of thinking.


So either you as well as myself, stand, in a simple point of view, against the way we've been brought up, by family.

Even parental views don't make much difference, I don't think. Of six children, my five siblings are all committed christians.

I'm reasonably convinced that belief is all about how much one wants to believe.


(I can only defend my faith by faith, which excludes any reasonable argument. It's mere faith, and there's no other way of supporting it.)

That's good!

I have no problem with that at all - it's very much how many moderate/liberal christians feel. It's an honest position, which is refreshing.

[NikolaiI]

The case seems to be that you (like most atheists I know) are exactly inverse case as I. I used to be atheist, was brought up as an atheist, in atheism, and I went into faith in a god. Most atheists I know come from some sort of religious background, and became atheists because it's more coherent to them, or some other rational explaination (such as they cannot prove that there is a god).

I am similar to you, in that, although my father was atheist and my mother was Christian, I was atheist for most of the years of my young life, until about 17 when I started to believe in a spiritual source. I also agree that argument isn't really constructive or conducive to growth. Spirituality is a personal thing, and it can only be engaged in discussion where there is respect on both sides. To say that I can't force conversion by means of argument a die-hard atheist, does not mean that I don't have rational, reason for my belief. It is my belief I am part of the universe, which I see as infinite. It's my belief in that God is infinite. To some, that is contradictory, but I don't live for them...