Why do we doubt science?
- Thread starter GT WT
- Start date
C
Coelacanth
Guest
buckhorn,
You're about half-way through trying to make a point. You stopped short for a reason.
You're about half-way through trying to make a point. You stopped short for a reason.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
GTWT, I wouldn't think so. How can an infinitely good God support injustice? Injustice isn't good, right? Also, infinitude doesn't assume paradoxical existence does it? At least when a Christian thinks of God as infinite it is specifically in the areas of location, knowledge and power.
Dion, I am sure there have been some Christians who have behaved the way you describe. That doesn't mean they have correctly explained the Biblical God well. It actually shows they don't understand His revelation.
At the same time, I wouldn't ever describe any of God's actions as evil. He is violent at times, but violence is not equivalent to evil. Though it is expressed as violence by humans commonly.
God is holy and out of His holiness judges sin. That's not evil. It's justice. Is a judge that metes out punishment to a law breaker evil?
Evidence is of course important for believers. Only in your twisted opinion of Christians is it not. Every believer, in anything, by definition must have something to base their faith on and they see that evidence as convincing. Otherwise, they would not have been convinced. I don't see what your tirade accomplishes.
Dion, I am sure there have been some Christians who have behaved the way you describe. That doesn't mean they have correctly explained the Biblical God well. It actually shows they don't understand His revelation.
At the same time, I wouldn't ever describe any of God's actions as evil. He is violent at times, but violence is not equivalent to evil. Though it is expressed as violence by humans commonly.
God is holy and out of His holiness judges sin. That's not evil. It's justice. Is a judge that metes out punishment to a law breaker evil?
Evidence is of course important for believers. Only in your twisted opinion of Christians is it not. Every believer, in anything, by definition must have something to base their faith on and they see that evidence as convincing. Otherwise, they would not have been convinced. I don't see what your tirade accomplishes.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
My question was in response to your statement that any God you could conceive of would have to be infinitely good. My question comes from that statement.
To answer you last question. I don't think God is as you state based on my reading of the Bible. He is good. In His goodness, He is holy and loving at the same time. That doesn't mean He is all loving because He doesn't love things which are evil. His holiness dictates that He will punish evil. I don't see punishers of evil as evil. I see in the Bible a good God who punishes those who do evil. That makes Him violent at times but not evil.
To answer you last question. I don't think God is as you state based on my reading of the Bible. He is good. In His goodness, He is holy and loving at the same time. That doesn't mean He is all loving because He doesn't love things which are evil. His holiness dictates that He will punish evil. I don't see punishers of evil as evil. I see in the Bible a good God who punishes those who do evil. That makes Him violent at times but not evil.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT_WT,
I'm sure the Jains and the Sunnis and the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Jews and the Hindus and the Sikhs and the Shintos and all the others find their primary sources to be quite persuasive.
Many believers want to make their faith into a complex mix of sophisticated theological exegesis and prayerful soul-searching and conscientious examination of the sacred texts. And it's essential that they do this, because how else does an otherwise intelligent person reconcile oneself to the most absurd and anti-human philosophy ever inflicted upon mankind.
Religion is nothing more than a geocultural phenomenon: people tend to embrace the local prevailing myths. Look at a map of the distribution of the world's religions and it tells you all you need to know about this phenomenon we call faith.
You're a [insert faith here] because your culture offered it and you have accepted it.
Many believers want to make their faith into a complex mix of sophisticated theological exegesis and prayerful soul-searching and conscientious examination of the sacred texts. And it's essential that they do this, because how else does an otherwise intelligent person reconcile oneself to the most absurd and anti-human philosophy ever inflicted upon mankind.
Religion is nothing more than a geocultural phenomenon: people tend to embrace the local prevailing myths. Look at a map of the distribution of the world's religions and it tells you all you need to know about this phenomenon we call faith.
You're a [insert faith here] because your culture offered it and you have accepted it.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Dion, I can only go from who I have met but I have found that the only other religion that really considers primary sources is Muslims. In general Shintos, Daos, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews don't think much about historical reliability of their texts. Many adherents don't even go by a text. Daos, Hindus and Buddhists are free to coopt any religous text they want if it they feel there is some subjective truth that helps them. So I can't really agree with your assertion. What is it based on?
Also, culture does play a role in religion. Can't argue. But as evidenced by history many many times, culture changes. Primary religions change. And despite what your map shows, there are millions of Christians from India east and north up through China. And the Christian church is growing very rapidly in Asia. So despite the truth that culture plays a role maybe your statement of religion merely being a geographical fact is incorrect. At least if you look beyond very high level generalities.
Also, culture does play a role in religion. Can't argue. But as evidenced by history many many times, culture changes. Primary religions change. And despite what your map shows, there are millions of Christians from India east and north up through China. And the Christian church is growing very rapidly in Asia. So despite the truth that culture plays a role maybe your statement of religion merely being a geographical fact is incorrect. At least if you look beyond very high level generalities.
Mona, I guess the specifics of my opening sentence obscured the broader point, which is that most every religious belief refers to some foundational text or narrative in support of its teachings, and the followers of these faiths are just as persuaded by their "primary sources" or their respective idols as Christians are of the bible and Jesus.
In other words, it's culturally driven and therefore essentially arbitrary.
In other words, it's culturally driven and therefore essentially arbitrary.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I understand the point. It is valid.
My point is based on yours and that is though all religions have a text and the adherent are convinced on that text or the cultural expression of it, some texts have been more highly investigated for reliability and consistency than others. One of the reasons I am convinced of the veracity of the Bible is that it has been thoroughly tested by believer and nonbeliever alike for a considerable amount of time. As I pointed out before, for many religions reliability and consistency aren't even concerns. The point being, relatively speaking among religious texts the Bible is among the most convincing if not the most convincing.
And your assertion that religious preference is arbitrary flies in the face of data of how people in traditionally non-Christian places are responding to the gospel en masse. You may disagree but I even think that people believing in the US is an example of defying culture. In the US, Christianity has drifted to the margins of the culture. I think we can all agree that Materialism (in all its forms) is a much more pervasive idea in the US than Christianity.
My point is based on yours and that is though all religions have a text and the adherent are convinced on that text or the cultural expression of it, some texts have been more highly investigated for reliability and consistency than others. One of the reasons I am convinced of the veracity of the Bible is that it has been thoroughly tested by believer and nonbeliever alike for a considerable amount of time. As I pointed out before, for many religions reliability and consistency aren't even concerns. The point being, relatively speaking among religious texts the Bible is among the most convincing if not the most convincing.
And your assertion that religious preference is arbitrary flies in the face of data of how people in traditionally non-Christian places are responding to the gospel en masse. You may disagree but I even think that people believing in the US is an example of defying culture. In the US, Christianity has drifted to the margins of the culture. I think we can all agree that Materialism (in all its forms) is a much more pervasive idea in the US than Christianity.
One of the reasons I am convinced of the veracity of the Bible is that it has been thoroughly tested by believer and nonbeliever alike for a considerable amount of time.
This is more than somewhat laughable:
Jesus actually came back from the dead?
Jonah actually was in a whale (leviathan) for 3 days?
Mary actually was impregnated by the Holy Spirit?
The world was made in 6 days?
Adam and Eve were the first people, living in Eden?
No, the Christian bible has hardly been "tested" for its accuracy.
This is more than somewhat laughable:
Jesus actually came back from the dead?
Jonah actually was in a whale (leviathan) for 3 days?
Mary actually was impregnated by the Holy Spirit?
The world was made in 6 days?
Adam and Eve were the first people, living in Eden?
No, the Christian bible has hardly been "tested" for its accuracy.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Perham1, the reliability of the Bible has been a subject of much study for many years. That is what I am referring to. Your comment lies outside the context of my statement and the previous conversation.
I agree you can't go back in time and "test" i.e. reobserve statements in the Bible. However, the reliability of the text itself can and has been investigated very carefully.
And about the culture/religion conversation, maybe you don't understand because I understood well. I was referring to a specific statements:
I agree you can't go back in time and "test" i.e. reobserve statements in the Bible. However, the reliability of the text itself can and has been investigated very carefully.
And about the culture/religion conversation, maybe you don't understand because I understood well. I was referring to a specific statements:
If those statements are true it means that no one religion can be any more convincing than another because a person's current culture is such an overwhelming force.
That is clearly not true at all. There can definitely be religions which are more convincing than others, even given the fact that all relgion is "geocultural". You're creating a very, very weak and nonsensical strawman here. Please stop.
And I am still forced to conclude that again you lack an understanding of the "culturally driven" part.
That is clearly not true at all. There can definitely be religions which are more convincing than others, even given the fact that all relgion is "geocultural". You're creating a very, very weak and nonsensical strawman here. Please stop.
And I am still forced to conclude that again you lack an understanding of the "culturally driven" part.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
I would really like to have a better understanding of how the reliability of ancient texts can be tested. My impression has always been that the answer to the questions that inevitably arise about certain fact specific situations are almost always explained by something along the lines of "It must be God's will and we are not given to understand, just believe and keep the faith".
I would really like to have a better understanding of how the reliability of ancient texts can be tested.
It appears that "reliability" is being narrowly defined as "the bible has been copied accurately throughout the ages". If that is incorrect please let us know.
But is that even true? Do we even have the data to definitively show that the bible has been meticulously transcribed throughout the ages? The answer is no, we don't.
A good book on this is Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
Imo, we have too much of a devotional approach to the bible in this forum, i.e., assuming the Christian holy text is inerrant and all that stuff (which includes "reliability"). It's just a book. Written by men. A good book, perhaps even written by good men. But don't go overboard and start thinking it's inerrent.
It appears that "reliability" is being narrowly defined as "the bible has been copied accurately throughout the ages". If that is incorrect please let us know.
But is that even true? Do we even have the data to definitively show that the bible has been meticulously transcribed throughout the ages? The answer is no, we don't.
A good book on this is Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
Imo, we have too much of a devotional approach to the bible in this forum, i.e., assuming the Christian holy text is inerrant and all that stuff (which includes "reliability"). It's just a book. Written by men. A good book, perhaps even written by good men. But don't go overboard and start thinking it's inerrent.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Perham1, I am defining reliability the way it is defined for any historical document, more specifically ancient documents. That is the only way I know to evaluate reliability of documents. You?
As I said before I am responding to specific quotations that were made. I understand what you mean generally "culturally driven". I would understand it to mean that religions are contained within specific cultures and when growing up in a certain culture you will be taught, trained in that religion which that culture generally embraces. Do I understand?
As I said before I am responding to specific quotations that were made. I understand what you mean generally "culturally driven". I would understand it to mean that religions are contained within specific cultures and when growing up in a certain culture you will be taught, trained in that religion which that culture generally embraces. Do I understand?
Perham1, I am defining reliability the way it is defined for any historical document, more specifically ancient documents.
That may be, but what is the definition? Why do you continue to neglect to provide the definition (and telling us that it is the convention doesn't tell us the definition). I'm still under that impression that you mean merely that the bible has been accurately copied over the years. And as I have said, we don't have the data to support that view. Not if one is being objective and honest.
That may be, but what is the definition? Why do you continue to neglect to provide the definition (and telling us that it is the convention doesn't tell us the definition). I'm still under that impression that you mean merely that the bible has been accurately copied over the years. And as I have said, we don't have the data to support that view. Not if one is being objective and honest.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
This reminds me of the final scene in "an Absence of Malice" where Sally Fields asks Paul Newman something along the lines of "Is that the Truth?"
and he responds
"No, but it's accurate".
and he responds
"No, but it's accurate".
"Absence of Malice" is one of my favorites. I especially like the scene where Wilford Brimley (sp) is conducting his pow-wow (and the weasely guy is taking in the shorts - Elliot somebody?) and somebody lays out just what he thought Paul Newman did and Paul shouts "prove it"! They know they are screwed at that point.
Also, I read an interesting mini-treatise on the "truth" just last night in the New York Review of Books (regarding a murder trial and how the court system works, and we humans have a need to have things make sense, even if it means we sub-consciously misinterpret things so that our inner narrative works for us).
Here are some snippets:
We want the elements to add up to a satisfying and coherent story. But as Anton Chekhov wrote—in a letter quoted by Malcolm in Reading Chekhov: A Critical Journey (2001)—responding to a reader who had complained of the writer’s having evaded a proper explanation of his protagonist’s motives: “We shall not play the charlatan, and we will declare frankly that nothing is clear in this world. Only fools and charlatans know and understand everything.”
A bit metaphysical, perhaps. Certainly operating on a realm most of don't inhabit.
Next...
“We go through life mishearing and mis-seeing and misunderstanding so that the stories we tell ourselves will add up.” Stories want to resolve themselves despite all obstacles; Malcolm’s peculiar mission, here as elsewhere, is to point out the cost of such resolutions, to zero in on those details that don’t fit the main story and are thus discarded, and in the process to make manifest the unreconcilable gap between an acceptable master narrative—the version that everyone must agree on in order to keep moving forward—and the specific qualities of what actually happens.
I think it's a big step forward for us to at least acknowledge and be aware that this happens and that we do it.
And for the coup de grace:
“The truth is messy, incoherent, aimless, boring, absurd,” Malcolm has written elsewhere. “The truth does not make a good story; that’s why we have art.”
The book is Janet Malcolm's "Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial".
Link is www. nybooks.com (This particular article requires a subscription.)
Also, the New Yorker magazine had a great article on this as well, written by Janet Malcolm.
Also, I read an interesting mini-treatise on the "truth" just last night in the New York Review of Books (regarding a murder trial and how the court system works, and we humans have a need to have things make sense, even if it means we sub-consciously misinterpret things so that our inner narrative works for us).
Here are some snippets:
We want the elements to add up to a satisfying and coherent story. But as Anton Chekhov wrote—in a letter quoted by Malcolm in Reading Chekhov: A Critical Journey (2001)—responding to a reader who had complained of the writer’s having evaded a proper explanation of his protagonist’s motives: “We shall not play the charlatan, and we will declare frankly that nothing is clear in this world. Only fools and charlatans know and understand everything.”
A bit metaphysical, perhaps. Certainly operating on a realm most of don't inhabit.
Next...
“We go through life mishearing and mis-seeing and misunderstanding so that the stories we tell ourselves will add up.” Stories want to resolve themselves despite all obstacles; Malcolm’s peculiar mission, here as elsewhere, is to point out the cost of such resolutions, to zero in on those details that don’t fit the main story and are thus discarded, and in the process to make manifest the unreconcilable gap between an acceptable master narrative—the version that everyone must agree on in order to keep moving forward—and the specific qualities of what actually happens.
I think it's a big step forward for us to at least acknowledge and be aware that this happens and that we do it.
And for the coup de grace:
“The truth is messy, incoherent, aimless, boring, absurd,” Malcolm has written elsewhere. “The truth does not make a good story; that’s why we have art.”
The book is Janet Malcolm's "Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial".
Link is www. nybooks.com (This particular article requires a subscription.)
Also, the New Yorker magazine had a great article on this as well, written by Janet Malcolm.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
