08 Apr 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, what is your view of members of other religions making similar claims:
My problem is that all your talk of science and evidence is all very well , but it's not the whole deal for theists because once a person "knows" God *(A) then the evidence issue seems less important. The evidence is written on their own heart.
1. They are lying.
2. All your evidence actually points to is some vague spirituality.
3. You don't know how it is possible.
4. You've never met one.
5. Other.
If I fall head over heels in love with a girl, I may know I love her, it may feel perfect and right, and the evidence will be written on my heart, but it wont make her who I think she is nor who I want her to be. Nor will it make her love me back.
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's an odd attitude from a 'man of science'. In terms of pure economy of movement, it takes less effort for you to make a few keystrokes than for me to summarize a concept in a way that wouldn't be misleading, allowing you to seize upon my definition rather than the concept itself and so go on comparing apples with oranges. Much better for you to look it up yourself!
In other words you cant be bothered to even give a basic summary. I guess you simply want to avoid discussing what you cant defend.
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadTwo main reasons: there are too many animal species to fit inside an Ark; the same story occurs in many other cultures (although I'm surprised that the notion of a pre-Babel nation of sea-borne patriarchs hasn't occurred to any literalist apologist yet; perhaps it has).
OK. Why do you not think it is literal fact. And what are the people who think it is, doing wrong? Maybe your a making a category mistake and don't realize that they are right.
Literalists who equivocate on the notion of 'kind' in order to 'fit the beasts into the boat' are making a category error: they are treating Genesis as though it were a scientific theory, which it manifestly is not. It's a myth! Unfortunately, literalists are unable to make that distinction ... Your mistake, it seems to me, is to treat the Bible as though it were making scientific claims -- forcing it into a category of discourse where it patently does not fit, and crowing in triumph at its failure to match up to the expectations of modern science.
Anyway -- back to Noah -- the myth remains flexible; you could use it as an illustration of human (specifically Western) failure to adhere to a right relationship with the environment and other human cultures leading to mass extinction and environmental catastrophe (incidentally prophesied by Native Americans, whose words appear on glossy posters available at supermarkets -- "You can't eat money", that sort of thing); that illustration, albeit clearly fictional, can then be the basis for a critique of scientific practice dating from Bacon to the present day (with the added irony that Bacon's 'manifest destiny' scientific manifesto was derived from an interpretation of Genesis giving Man the right to dominate the earth).
In brief: myths should not be beaten with the stick reserved for pure science!
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI will do so. But my experience on these forums is that when I do so then offer a counter argument, I will be told that what I looked up on Google is not actually the posters position at all.
That's an odd attitude from a 'man of science'. In terms of pure economy of movement, it takes less effort for you to make a few keystrokes than for me to summarize a concept in a way that wouldn't be misleading, allowing you to seize upon my definition rather than the concept itself and so go on comparing apples with oranges. Much better for you to look it up yourself!
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo you fall back on scientific methods. Essentially, you look at the available evidence and come up with the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.
Two main reasons: there are too many animal species to fit inside an Ark; the same story occurs in many other cultures (although I'm surprised that the notion of a pre-Babel nation of sea-borne patriarchs hasn't occurred to any literalist apologist yet; perhaps it has).
Obviously the whole flood thing was a miracle, there is no way even creationists think that Noah went all over the earth looking for a male and female of each species.(By the way, would you have questioned that bit of the story?). Obviously God brought them to the ark. Surely he could also find a way to fit them in and make sure that they went back where they belonged after the flood?
Literalists who equivocate on the notion of 'kind' in order to 'fit the beasts into the boat' are making a category error:
But how do you know that it is not you that is making the category error? What methodology do you use to make the determination? Feelings perhaps?
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn order to answer the question "Is it the case that the story of Noah's Ark a factual account of an historical event?" I use the appropriate methodology, yes. Other questions -- "What does the story of Noah's Ark mean?" -- call for different treatment, since they are not concerned with whether the Ark and its inhabitants actually existed or not.
So you fall back on scientific methods. Essentially, you look at the available evidence and come up with the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.
Obviously the whole flood thing was a miracle, there is no way even creationists think that Noah went all over the earth looking for a male and female of each species.(By the way, would you have questio ...[text shortened]... the category error? What methodology do you use to make the determination? Feelings perhaps?
Category A: Myth.
Category B: Science (is it scientifically possible for the story to have taken place?).
Applying magical thinking to scientific problems yields ingenious but implausible solutions (eg. an elastic Ark); applying scientific thinking to mythological narratives is simply unproductive (how big would the Ark have to have been ... Irrevelant to the meaning of the story).
Clear enough?
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAhh! So you did make a category mistake. The ark story is:
Category A: Myth.
Category B: Science (is it scientifically possible for the story to have taken place?).
Category C: Miracles.
I see no reason to assume that it was scientifically possible because we are told it was an act of God and therefore there are no such requirements.
Now why don't you apply your same rules to the question of the existence of God? Why don't you ask "is it scientifically possible for God to exist"? Why is he in a different category from Noahs ark?
You also claimed that religion in general does not overlap with science and they must be kept separate, yet here you admit that there is significant overlap. You must know that most religions involve miracles and other beliefs that contradict the findings of science.
08 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyour hole argument of the non-existence of god is based on a book written thousands of years ago by a people with no country who desperately needed miracles. so they exaggerated a bit. you on the other hand are saying that if god is not responsible for every single nonsense that is written in the bible then he must not exist. you dont suggest that he might exist but be different than in the bible, no you quickly jump to the answer that suits you. and you call believers narrow-minded.
Ahh! So you did make a category mistake. The ark story is:
Category C: Miracles.
I see no reason to assume that it was scientifically possible because we are told it was an act of God and therefore there are no such requirements.
Now why don't you apply your same rules to the question of the existence of God? Why don't you ask "is it scientifically p t most religions involve miracles and other beliefs that contradict the findings of science.
tell me, does it enter your skull once in a while that you might be wrong? i admit the possibility i am wrong many times but since i have no way of influencing God's existence anyway it doesn't hurt believing in a benevolent being that is supposed to be giving me some cool stuff if i do some things i would have done anyway(like be nice)
Edit: and yes, has it occured to you that the "miracles" you so desperately cling to to prove god is not real are more of moral value than historical? when you teach our children "be nice or the boogy man will get you" do you actually mean there is a boogy man under the bed? will your children call you a liar when they discover at the age of x that there is no such thing? or will they understand the most important thing of the story"be nice". some jews scare their children that if they are bad god punishes with awesome pawnage and you jump to the conclusion that there is no god because those jews like to exaggerate.
08 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, myths by their very nature are replete with miraculous phenomena, so you don't need a separate category for miracles. Sorry! Try again.
Ahh! So you did make a category mistake. The ark story is:
Category C: Miracles.
I see no reason to assume that it was scientifically possible because we are told it was an act of God and therefore there are no such requirements.
Now why don't you apply your same rules to the question of the existence of God? Why don't you ask "is it scientifically p t most religions involve miracles and other beliefs that contradict the findings of science.
Is God in a different boat to Noah's ark? I guess the answer is yes [wrote 'no' at first; Freudian slip?]. 'Ark' is a label to which you can attach a thing (I could build a vessel as described in Genesis); to what, precisely, would you attach the label 'God'? How ascertain the existence of something described as 'unmanifest'? And so on. Refer to William of Ockham. Physics doesn't get involved in metaphysics -- by definition -- and quite rightly so. Why do you keep on insisting that it should? It's beyond me. Rather let metaphysics just die off quietly ...
It's not my problem if religious people entertain irrational beliefs (although they only become irrational when they admitted to inappropriate categories: I'd consider transubstantiation to be an irrational belief if taken literally, ie. bread turns to flesh in your mouth; but on the mythological plane, it makes perfect sense). But it's quite possible to be ultra-rational and believe in God. Viz. Immanuel Kant.
I'd venture to suggest that most religious people spend about as much time pondering the nature of God as the secular masses spend on quantum theory: not a hell of a lot.
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo. I am questioning your putting this question:
No, myths by their very nature are replete with miraculous phenomena, so you don't need a separate category for miracles. Sorry! Try again.
"Is it the case that the story of Noah's Ark a factual account of an historical event?"
in the science category. I am putting it in the 'Miracles' category.
If you insist it is in the science category then you are essentially ruling out the possibility of a God who can violate the laws of physics to his hearts content.
I'd venture to suggest that most religious people spend about as much time pondering the nature of God as the secular masses spend on quantum theory: not a hell of a lot.
And I'd venture to suggest that many of those people are only semi-religious -essentially agnostic but hedging their bets. I have always found it weird how many people claim to believe a whole number of things including God but act like they don't.
08 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm afraid your putting the veracity of the Noah's Ark tale into a category named 'miracles', as opposed to 'physics' and 'metaphysics' (I should have been more precise and used 'physics' instead of 'science', because physics and metaphysics are the categories traditionally used) makes no sense to me at all. You can play Humpty Dumpty and invent all the categories you want, but 'miracles' doesn't form a distinct category of thought, whereas physics and metaphysics do.
No. I am questioning your putting this question:
"Is it the case that the story of Noah's Ark a factual account of an historical event?"
in the science category. I am putting it in the 'Miracles' category.
If you insist it is in the science category then you are essentially ruling out the possibility of a God who can violate the laws of physics to his ...[text shortened]... people claim to believe a whole number of things including God but act like they don't.
Be that as it may -- I'm quite content both to rule out Super Duper God, that primitive thought idol, from the physical universe. A great many theologians would, too.
Miracles could be placed under the sign of pataphysics, the science of exceptions ...
Hmm, maybe some of those people don't take the notion of God quite as literally as you seem to. For the image of God that you put forth in this forum is definitely Super Duper God, a primitive product of primitive imaginations. Having eviscerated that particular idol, perhaps you'd care to turn your attention to a different one?
09 Apr 08
2 edits
First, tw, thanks for your response; I think I have a clearer idea of what you meant by “scientific” inquiry: I think you are talking about reason and empiricism and the principle of (potential) falsifiablilty.
By creating a separate category called “miracles”, are you assuming that miracles (e.g. Noah and the ark) are to be presumed to have actually happened—i.e., not part of the larger category of myth? On that score, I suspect that you and Bosse are talking past one another. Now, no Biblical literalist/historicist is going to acknowledge myth. But I think it’s an error for non-theists to assume that the Biblical literalist/historicist reading is the necessarily correct (or the original) one—or that all theists (Christian or otherwise) are committed to a literalist/historicist reading.
Many of these are ancient stories coming out of an oral (story-telling) tradition and being written down. I can’t offhand remember whether the Noah story comes out of the Yahwist or the Elohist tradition (they are woven together in the Torah), but the Yahwist tradition is high and artful literature—not just schlock superstition told by some unintelligent and unartful author. I think both literalist/historicists and secular rationalists miss the point when they read such stories that way. Sometimes I think the literalist/historicists are more superstitious than the folks that told the stories. [Yes, I know this is a pet peeve of mine.]
________________________________________
An example: We go round and round and round about the story of the genocide of the Amalekites—and almost everyone misses the point of the story (which No.1 Marauder pointed out recently).
Exodus 17:14 Then YHVH said to Moses, "Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
Now, think for a minute: Imagine an early tribal storyteller telling this story. Imagine the author of the Yahwist strand re-telling it. Think about the fact that this line is in the story. Think about the original storytellers (the Hebrew equivalent of Celtic bards); think about the fact that they were artists, crafting myth and story, sometimes out of historical events, sometimes not. Think of “J” (the standard designation of the author of the Yahwist strand of the Torah) being a highly intelligent (and witty) author.* Think of these forbears as being every bit as intelligent (if not as knowledgeable) as we are—they had the same brain, after all, and we’re not talking about homo habilis.
Do you really think it’s plausible that such storyteller artists and writers of literary accomplishment did not understand irony? Do you think that, when the story had been told, that none of the listeners (or, later, readers) said: “Hey, wait a minute! If the remembrance of Amalek was to be blotted out—how come we’re hearing the story?!”
Now, if you can see that irony as the very point of the story—then what does the story say?**
Sometimes I think that we have so lost our abilities as readers/listeners that I fear that a thousand years from now people will be making these same argument s over Tolkien!
* I recommend The Book of J by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg. Incidentally, literary critic Bloom, while admitting it is highly speculative, thinks the author of the Yahwist stories was likely a woman.
** None of what I’m saying here is antithetical to Jewish exegesis, which by and large recognizes story. And sometimes these stories are quite artful in terms of “concealing” the point, or an ironic twist, in one or a few verses embedded in a larger narrative framework—just as there are puns in Hebrew and some of the psalms are written as acrostics.
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by vistesdYou are better than I at putting ideas into words so let my quote what you posted in another thread:
First, tw, thanks for your response; I think I have a clearer idea of what you meant by “scientific” inquiry: I think you are talking about reason and empiricism and the principle of (potential) falsifiablilty.
Originally posted by vistesd
Although I would rephrase the whole thing so that your question is really aimed at the notion of believing something for which one does not think she has (can have?) sufficient justificatory reason/evidence, rather than a strict rule of surety (certainty). Absent such reason, one may (reasonably) simply withhold belief. (Ringing rwingett!)
You are better than I at putting ideas into words. My argument in this thread is that most people would agree with your statement above and that many theists keep contradicting themselves by simultaneously claiming that they both have sufficient justificatory reason/evidence and that it is not possible to get it (possibly through some reason God has for keeping hidden.)
09 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Gotcha. Sometimes, too, what is claimed is that there is some other mode of knowing than reason or empiricism (experience/observation—and I would not exclude intuition as long as it is testable by reason and empiricism). Epiphenehas and I have had running arguments about his claim that faith has epistemic value as such a mode (as I understood him, anyway: I don’t want to mischaracterize his view).
You are better than I at putting ideas into words so let my quote what you posted in another thread:
Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Although I would rephrase the whole thing so that your question is really aimed at the notion of believing something for which one does not think she has (can have?) sufficient justificatory reason/evidence, rathe ...[text shortened]... and that it is not possible to get it (possibly through some reason God has for keeping hidden.)
But I think what you’re getting at is someone who both argues that there is sufficient reason for belief, on the one hand—and that God remains beyond our ability to comprehend, on the other.
Or someone who characterizes God as X—and then says that X doesn’t mean the same thing for God as for us, so that we really can’t understand what it means for God to be X.
I’m tired, and have to pack it in, tw. Thanks for the compliment, but I’m really tired, and if I don’t stop now, I’m going to be writing symxbffle dnnbdy... I’ll after some sleep think about it, will...
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy view of other religions making similar claims is fair play to them. If a muslim has a strong experience of God's love and presence with them then cool. I would suggest to them that this experience does not match the Islamic view of God nearly as well as the Christian one and that Christianity includes within it's theology a concept of God as intimate , loving and present with us via the Holy Spirit (whereas Isalm does not).
So, what is your view of members of other religions making similar claims:
1. They are lying.
2. All your evidence actually points to is some vague spirituality.
3. You don't know how it is possible.
4. You've never met one.
5. Other.
If I fall head over heels in love with a girl, I may know I love her, it may feel perfect and right, and the evide ...[text shortened]... wont make her who I think she is nor who I want her to be. Nor will it make her love me back.
Islam (as an example) is not a religion where God comes alongside man and dwells with him as lover and friend. Islam seems to me to be the religion where God is revered and worshipped "on high" as a remote deity , not a loving father who draws near. If one is having an expereince of having one's heart ravaged by the intimate , tender love of a father God who is seeking a love affair with you then there's one religion that fits with that experience above and beyond all the others.