Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Is there a reason that people feel a need to present a scientific argument in order to disprove a faith based belief?
It is every bit as incongruous as the creationist documents that were linked; offering a faith based argument in order to disprove a scientific belief. That document highlights the idiocy of mixing science and a faith based belief system. You end up with bullshit pseudo-science with its roots in faith, or you end up with another scientific argument that contradicts the accounts of a book that is believed because the adherents have chosen to believe it without proof.
Neither side presents the kind of argument that the other will find compelling, so no progress is ever made. I really don't understand why people keep doing it anyway.
Is there a reason that people feel a need to present a scientific argument in order to disprove a faith based belief?
Because that's the proper way of scrutinizing beliefs, misconceptions, hearsay, legends and mythology? If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then the scientific approach is "ok, let's study this to see if there's anything to it".
Some people believe that the Earth is hollow and that there are advanced civilizations on the inner surface of the hollow shell (yes, really). How do you assess the veracity of this claim? By measurements and applying the scientific methodology and principles.
Please note that rather than questioning the veracity of the genesis story, I was questioning its literality in my earlier posts. Is it a story to be taken literally or figuratively? (Whether you believe it is another question entirely.)
I have a question for Bisqwit (which is what this thread is about, after all): You have not directly said that you are a young-earth creationist, but you have given subtle hints that you might be at least leaning towards that position. So my question is: What exactly would be the problem if the genesis story were figurative rather than literal?
I have a question for Bisqwit (which is what this thread is about, after all): You have not directly said that you are a young-earth creationist, but you have given subtle hints that you might be at least leaning towards that position. So my question is: What exactly would be the problem if the genesis story were figurative rather than literal?
The problem in general is: If God cannot be trusted in one thing, how can he be trusted in another thing?
If you cannot trust him to having spoken truth on one occassion, how could you trust anything he says? One thing I have learned recently is a general principle in the Bible: Absolutely no word exists there without a reason. Even the long lists of names have meaning to them. The Bible is a multi-dimensional book: There is meaning on many levels and many directions. You could read the immediate meaning of the text, but you can also perceive the big picture, and any number of hidden messages and alternative interpretations in it. But alter any part of it, and a number of those messages come apart.
This interpretation on the names within the genealogy of Noah is an interesting example.
Going back to the genesis, each day of the genesis teaches us a particular lesson; it has reflections and reverberations throughout the entire Bible (I read about this in some Jewish commentary, but I could not find a link to it for this post). But it is written as a history book; nowhere in the book does it switch from a metaphoric description to a historic description. It is one continuous historic description, the whole book. We know from archaeology (well, at least I know from archaeology) that some parts of it did happen as written, so it stands to reason that everything else also did happen as written.
Science doesn't afraid of mistakes. That means it shall be not just trusted, but checked and proved everytime. This also means that science can't study the Absolute. All knowledges are relative, they either deepen during the years, or get disproved. This is an endless process, like cutting the atom apart until we get a hypothetical indivisible particle.
While Bible accounts all possible info, and I can't even imagine, what part of it is known. You know, any number is infinitely smaller than infinity. So, you can't trust that science TOO much.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
The only thing I don't take quite literally is the word "day".
Me neither, they might not even indicate time. But it could be a problem for Christians because the Bible says that plants were created on day 3, and the sun was created on day 4, so if the days are long periods of time, how could the plants survive for thousands or millions of years until the sun is created?
Warp wrote:
The genesis story says that birds were created before land animals, and that sea life and birds were created at the same time, yet all the evidence points to the contrary.
The Bible says that both sea life and birds were created from the water though. Maybe fish could have evolved into birds, like these flying fish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWRCdUw17E
Many birds like ducks also live in water, and they are able to fly.
What puzzles me is why so many Christians so desperately cling to the genesis story being literal.
There aren't so many Christians who take it literally, those Christians probably just get the most attention. It also doesn't have to be either literal or figurative, some parts can be literal and others figurative.
I think the problem with the story being figurative is that then Christians wouldn't know what the word of god is saying, because they interpret it differently. If they don't know what the Bible is saying, how can it be trusted and taken seriously?
Well, let's imagine I'm the creator of something. I'm writing a manual of how to work with the thing I've developed. I can deliver the source code, if you ask me and I find you grounded enough to understand all correctly.
But instead of just direct asking you keep reverse engineering my product. Can you pretend on exhaustive knowledge that way? The funny thing is that after you restore a piece of the original code, you see that it contradicts the manual. And you tell me that I have a mistake in my docs, proving it with your hard debugging work.
What can I say in that case? You just aren't familiar enough with the structure of my produce. Is that the fault of my manual?
Now we shall add that God's product is infinite in details, because he foresaw all possible situations, like a perfect game developer. And what's the result of a clever game development? A perfect game, that can both entertain and rear you. You shall put enough diligence to win, and the reward overcomes all your expectations.
You can reverse engineer the real life for all your life and not advance at all, comparing to the whole diversity of the universe.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
[But it could be a problem for Christians because the Bible says that plants were created on day 3, and the sun was created on day 4, so if the days are long periods of time, how could the plants survive for thousands or millions of years until the sun is created?
Actually, it specifically says there were no plants on earth till man was.
See beginning of chapter 2:
No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Actually, it specifically says there were no plants on earth till man was.
What about Genesis 1 then, where god specifically says he created plants on the third day: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." -- Genesis 1:12-13
And as you know, man wasn't created until day 6. In Genesis 2 (after the 7th day) God forms man from the dust, but I guess forming is different from creating.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
Nach wrote:
Actually, it specifically says there were no plants on earth till man was.
What about Genesis 1 then, where god specifically says he created plants on the third day: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." -- Genesis 1:12-13
And as you know, man wasn't created until day 6. In Genesis 2 (after the 7th day) God forms man from the dust, but I guess forming is different from creating.
As I said above, don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
The word used at the beginning of 1:13 is commonly translated as "brought forth". But there are other meanings (click effect on the right to see more translations). Since the beginning of chapter 2 says there were no trees yet sprouting on earth, obviously one of the other meanings are more accurate.
It seems to be saying that the earth became capable of producing vegetation at that point.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
That's very interesting indeed! I didn't know that. I guess it pays off immensly to study Hebrew, if you are interested in the Bible (no big surprise there). I have come across a few passages (don't remember which) that I highly suspect to be slight mistranslations, and it also annoys me that lots of the symbolism and double/hidden meanings get lost in translation. I actually think I would be a lot more interested in reading the whole Bible if I could read Hebrew, though unfortunately to learn it is very, very low on my priority list atm.
That reminds me, I have read somewhere that the word that Jesus uses when he refers to himself as the "son of God" could also be translated to something akin to "servant of God". Is that correct? Probably not.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Kuwaga wrote:
That's very interesting indeed! I didn't know that. I guess it pays off immensly to study Hebrew, if you are interested in the Bible (no big surprise there). I have come across a few passages (don't remember which) that I highly suspect to be slight mistranslations, and it also annoys me that lots of the symbolism and double/hidden meanings get lost in translation.
Some passages are filled with so many meanings at once, it's quite scary.
Mistranslations are common, but there are other issues too. For example, there's an ancient chapter system used and found in very old editions and the dead sea scrolls and so on. Basically, any place where significant space is skipped is the indication of a new chapter.
But when they translated it to Latin, they paid no attention to the spacing, and had it as a running text. Later on, Archbishop Langton felt there needed to be chapters and made up his own. It's amazing how he consistently screwed up where the chapter breaks are supposed to be by a couple of verses throughout. Some even speculate he chose some of his chapters for political reasons. Comparing Langton's chapters to more authoritative ones also show how it distorts the text, and yet they only publish chapters according to Langton these days.
Kuwaga wrote:
That reminds me, I have read somewhere that the word that Jesus uses when he refers to himself as the "son of God" could also be translated to something akin to "servant of God". Is that correct? Probably not.
The word בן in Hebrew most commonly means son, but it can also mean follower or disciple. Son as an idea is also figurative to an extent. See Exodus 4:22 for example:
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: Thus saith the LORD: Israel is My son, My first-born.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The problem in general is: If God cannot be trusted in one thing, how can he be trusted in another thing?
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "figurative".
If I say to you "I'm so hungry that I could eat a horse", am I lying to you and being untrustworthy? If Jesus tells you that you are a lost lamb, is he lying to you and being untrustworthy?
(In fact, what young-earth creationists are proposing isn't much better. They are basically proposing that God created the universe about 6000 years ago and then went to extreme lengths to make it look like it's much, much older. For what purpose? To deceive? Would that be a sign of being trustworthy and caring?)
We know from archaeology (well, at least I know from archaeology) that some parts of it did happen as written, so it stands to reason that everything else also did happen as written.
I hope you understand that's an argumentative fallacy (regardless of whether it's actually true or not).
The Bible says that both sea life and birds were created from the water though. Maybe fish could have evolved into birds, like these flying fish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWRCdUw17E
Many birds like ducks also live in water, and they are able to fly.
You never fail to amuse. Sometimes I suspect you are just a very clever poe who has been able to keep his disguise for years.
feos wrote:
And talking about the word 'day', if you accept that those days weren't just one dark part and one bright part and that's it, if you think that those days lasted for millions of days each
So "day" is figurative, but everything else is literal. And what exactly is your justification for this?
And even if "day" means really "millions of years" it still doesn't help, because what the story says and what we see are in contradiction. God would still have to had deliberately make the history of the Earth look different than what is written, in all possible ways that this can be measured.
I still don't understand why exactly it is so important that the genesis story must be literally true and not a figurative parable, like many of the other parables in the Bible. Would your faith in God be diminished the slightest bit if it happened to be figurative? Would you start doubting? If not, then what exactly is the problem?
I was saying that figurative conception of that day is wrong. Nothing prevents us from thinking those few days lasted longer or shorter than ours (except the nowadays paradigma, based on atheism).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
(except the nowadays paradigma, based on atheism).
Based on atheism? Where did that idea come from?
The scientific paradigm is based on what can be observed, measured and tested. Atheism has nothing to do with that.
Well, I guess you can say it's loosely based on atheism, as you can't observe and measure gods, let alone test them. Actually, scratch that, it's atheism that is based on the scientific paradigm.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
After Darwin and the dissemination of evolutionism, it became scientific to disprove Bible, the new philosophy was born and captured scientists' minds as well. Are scientists cold-minded robots? No. They get influenced by the common philosophic attitude of their times.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I'm not sure disproving the Bible has ever been scientific to begin with. Replace "Bible" with "Santa Claus" and it'll become more obvious.
Debates such as this start when people take things more seriously than they should. As Warp has repeatedly pointed out, the Bible doesn't need to be taken literally. You can be a faithful Christian and I'm sure you'll go to Heaven even if you don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Wrong assumption. What CAN'T be taken literally in the Bible (like Matthew 19:12: "there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven") and what CAN is determined by God himself (thanks to saints who have written or told all important Bible books interpretations), not by something that never can be blindly trusted (I explained earlier why you can't trust science totally).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
That if you take figuratively the thing that wasn't intended for that by the Author, you can still "go to Heaven". You imagine yourself a measure of what shall be literally trusted in the Bible and what not.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I hope you aren't going to argue that the Bible was written by God himself. It was written by men; it think that's obvious enough. By taking it literally you put your faith in those men first and God second.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
That if you take figuratively the thing that wasn't intended for that by the Author, you can still "go to Heaven". You imagine yourself a measure of what shall be literally trusted in the Bible and what not.
So you're afraid that god will get pissed and send you to hell because you applied critical thinking to something written in a book that might or might not be "the manual"?
Manual says Megaman can't walk on spikes. But "science" applied critical thinking and whoa.
I hope you aren't going to argue that the Bible was written by God himself. It was written by men; it think that's obvious enough. By taking it literally you put your faith in those men first and God second.
LOL, if you write down the words I dictate you (as some writers used to do, their helpers wrote down what they were speaking), are you something that can divide me from the reader? I trust God who said that I can trust those men and confirmed their witnessing differently (for me).
AnS wrote:
So you're afraid that god will get pissed and send you to hell because you applied critical thinking to something written in a book that might or might not be "the manual"?
Manual says Megaman can't walk on spikes. But "science" applied critical thinking and whoa.
I afraid of nothing because I can feel the truth, by intuition. And I feel what is right for me and what's wrong. As for critical thinking, I mentioned that God is Absolute and free of flaws withing his creation, while human really can find bugs in any program because they were all written by a human. So the only constructive approach is to WONDER what the given part means, looking for the answer that would make you feel it's right. And your destiny would kindly send you such an answer. Happened to me hundreds of times, in different spheres.
But there's something that's higher than any written text. It's your own heart's direct feeling. Conscience, intuition. It leads you where no text can give an acceptable answer. And the most funny thing is when your heart allows you the things forbidden by the text (crux death was damned in the Old Testament).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
