Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

"Eventually, the African bishop asked in exasperation, "If you don't believe the scripture, why did you bring it to us in the first place?""

LOL.
 

Wow. Great article.

It reminded me that my undergrad advisor had spent time in India, studying their interpretations of Shakespeare's plays. Where most folks from Europe and North America see Romeo and Juliet as tragic figures who rightly follow their hearts, in India it's more common to think that they got their just desserts for disobeying their parents
 

Cool actually.

There are many routes to the Truth, especially since we are not quite sure exactly where it is.

Excellent insight to the diversity of understanding. Kind of sounds like what the first 300 years of Christianity must have been. The horror of such diversity certainly has affected the Orthodox control.
 

It really does contrast with the discussion Alan and I have been having with Lee, doesn't it? Not to talk about him behind his blogback, but if Lee could wrap his mind around just a fraction of the richness of Scripture and the deep, deep impact it has had and continues to have on people, and peoples, some of his concerns, frankly, would fall away as the "something like scales" that are said to have fallen from Paul's eyes in suburban Damascus.

Big "if," tho.
 

Tha back side of this of course is that "readings" can result in ethonocentric heresies such as the American Black Liberation Theology.
In the simplest terms, the question is Christ the savior of individuals or of groups?
 

Drlobojo: universalists would say that everyone is saved. The early Biblical scholar Origen was a universalist, believing that all beings--even the fallen angels--would return to God eventually. He also read the Bible allegorically.
 

Christ is the savior of the cosmos.

I think God's gonna wear everyone down with God's love. Hell, the ol' Debble hisself might cave in a gozillion years or so.
 

Some potential answers to the African bishop:

"Because what you had by way of metaphysics was even stupider that Bible literalism."

"Because we had no idea you already had a fully developed alternative of killing witches without Biblical help."

"Oops! Our bad..."

"Right. Brace yourself: we made up Superman and the Easter Bunny too.

"April Fools!" or
"Sike!" (Identical sentiments from different generations.)

"Fooled you once, shame on us. Good thing our later offering of developmental Marxism was such a huge success, eh? Or capitalism."
 

Umm, hey TSTOCK. :-)
 

Hi ER,

Another thread just for me? You spoil me.

OK - just printed off the article and will read it on the train home tonight.

Not read any comments yet - so I am assuming someone (or this article) explains why I shouldn't take the bible literally?

I know you take it with a “pinch of salt” and so do I, but I wonder what your justification is being a Christian? You know where I am coming from - I’m a non-believer and think the bible was written, unaided, by man. Hence I can take the good bits and leave all the stoning and hate behind.

Don’t answer this yet though – I’m sure that is the point of the article anyway so I may learn something.

Cheers

Lee
 

The jist of the essay is that people in poor countries with harsh lives can identify with situations in the bible and find comfort from messages in the bible.

Of course this has no relevance to the issue of the truth of the bible.

Short people with hairy feet probably take comfort from reading The Hobbit.
 

"just a fraction of the richness of Scripture and the deep, deep impact it has had and continues to have on people"

Scripture might be chock-full of richness, although it's arguable whether that richness is readily apparent if you don't already believe in it. There's also no denying the impact that it has had. Still doesn't make it true.

The article does raise some interesting questions. How is it decided what the "correct" interpretation of Scripture is? Argument by majority doesn't seem like a good way. But what does that leave the believer with?
 

Interesting that the only people who think I take the Bible "with a grain of salt" are fundamentalist Christians and professed atheists-nonbelievers. I think if I were a fundamentalist or an atheist-onbeoiever, I would find that extremely unsetting.

Steve, this is a hoot! "Short people with hairy feet probably take comfort from reading The Hobbit."


Steve and Jonathan: The article, written by a Christian in a Christian magazine, assumes the writings collectively known as the Bible have truths, which, really, is different than saying "the" Bible "is true." Maybe I should start a post on a specific part of "the" Bib;e and we can make a go of whether it's true (versus accurate, versus an assertion of faith). Hmmm.


Rem "How is it decided what the "correct" interpretation of Scripture is?"

Dude. Why do you think there are a zillion Protestant denominations? Plus the Catholics? Plus the various Orthodox?

Because when the Canon was formed, the lines were drawn, and people have been fighting over the Scriptures ever since, instead of concentrating on the person of Jesus Christ and his simple messages (note I do not say they were unique to him) Love, God, love neighbor, love oneself.

That central message can be found in the Bible, as well as in the institutional memory, if you will, of The Way of Jesus. The organization of Christianity into a religion is its biggest fricking problem and has been since Constantine's alleged conversion.
 

I hope you accepted my comment in the spirit it was intended - I don't intend to mock :)

I find matters of faith and truth in religions deeply fascinating. I was a Catholic for decades, although my faith was pretty weak, and I ended up with nothing more than a vague feeling that "there must be something out there" before I realised that there probably wasn't.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bible contains useful messages, or that Christ did and said good things. It's the magic bits that I object to. Looking back at how I felt about it, I know how strong and appealing a belief in the magic bits can be. I just have a feeling that such beliefs can stand in the way of scientific and ethical progress.
 

Steve, I thought it was funny. :-)

I don't know what to say about the miracle stories other than 1., they're in there, 2., they're uin there on purpose (the purpose of the writers, anyway), and 3., as part of my faith heritage and tradition, and the holy writings of my faith, I gotta deal with them.

But ya know, until about 1977 or '78, in the church I grw up in, it never seemed to have even occurred to anyone to drill down into those stories to determine whether they were "true" as in factual. That's the fundies' domain. We just told the stories and looked for lessons in them. And that's pretty much my approach to them now:

What can I glean from a story that has Jesus walking on water toward a ship full of his followers, one of whom he invites to walk to him on the water (Peter), and whose faith falters and so he starts to sink?

It sound flip, but here's what I get from that: Sink or swim, Jesus is with me, and God loves me. That's the message, and I dare say that it's probably close to what the Gospel writer intended for me to glean.
 

This may amuse you. The physicist Frank Tipler has, in my opinion, got a bit carried away, and attempts to explain the levitation of Jesus on water using particle physics. Honestly:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Physics-of-Christianity/dp/B000OVLKF4/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210167096&sr=8-15
 

Wow.

For the record, I don't disbelieve the miracles. ;-)

The whole notion of natural versus supernatural seems to be falling apart as science advances, I think.

I think it's all supernatural, myself. :-)
 

I agree that the supernatural/natural distinction is meaningless. If stuff doesn't follow some kind of laws of behaviour, then we aren't in a position to investigate it, or even comment on it, as it is arbitrary. If stuff does follow laws, then we can investigate that stuff using the procedures of science - experimentation and Ockham's Razor.

Unfortunately, Tipler has forgotten the Razor part. His "science magic" works just as well explaining how Thor flies, so it is no use for determining the truth of Christianity.
 

But we agree that Thor flies.

:-)
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Did I stutter?
The only reason Thor flies is because I kicked him the ass so hard he sail all the way across the Mediterranean and Europe. Now, Pigs, them porkers do it all by themselves.
 

Hi ER,

Read the essay now on the train this morning... now what?

You want my opinion?

Firstly, what is all this “Global South” business? Merely a style of writing I guess but living about as south as you can get – I don’t much like the idea that living in the south means I’m “backwards” or “primitive” or anything... just a minute, I live in Australia – backwards and primitive seem spot on... carry on, carry on.

Secondly, where in this article does it say who is right in their interpretation? It really seems to be saying you can read the bible how the hell you like and take whatever meaning you like from it because it will not be wrong – it was meant to be read that way or something.

To me this would imply the message in the bible is vague – the author thinks this is a good thing?

Also, there are some really nice quotes in the essay, if I have time I will post some of the “classics” to open further discussion.

Interesting that the only people who think I take the Bible "with a grain of salt" are fundamentalist Christians and professed atheists-nonbelievers. I think if I were a fundamentalist or an atheist-onbeoiever, I would find that extremely unsetting.

But who would be more upset?

I still would like to know where in the bible it says you can read it however you like... maybe it was between the lines or something but we "fundies" missed it by only looking at the words :)

Cannot see the wood for the trees and all that.

Lee
PS
Hello Jonathan and Steve (and anyone else I’ve missed in the non-believer camp, not read all the comments yet)... glad you could make it over here. Hope ER welcomes the company – he said he wanted comments.
 

Hi ER,

Quoting from this essay will have to wait - so many unanswered comments I have to reply to on the "other" thread (no more blood for guilt)

Both you and Alan have been kind enough to reply, I should comment.

A non-believers work is never done :)

Lee
 

Kristen, when ever I read Origin of Alexandria I keep think, yep, right on. Kind of like Clement as well. I'm am fond of the reincarnation elements of their theology. When you dig down to the common denominator of most earthy religions you find that ineffiable unkown God and all us little lights or element reuniting with him/her in the end. Monotheism doesn't really mean worshiping one god, in practice it means worshiping god in the one correct way. at least that's make take on it.

Steve, love the Hobbit comparison, i will use it.
 

Lee wrote: "we "fundies" missed it by only looking at the words :)

Cannot see the wood for the trees and all that."

Heh. Gotta love the irony Lee.

You are (or were when you wrote that) actually surrounded by trees and yet are unable to discern any wood in them? You must have a good WiFi connection. I mean, I'm just looking at the words, or as you said in the previous thread I'm reading it in "black and white." ;)

Just teasing you. Well....sort of, but not really. ;)
 

Hi Alan,

Heh. Gotta love the irony Lee.

Yep, but you missed the first bit of my ‘irony’, I wrote:-

I still would like to know where in the bible it says you can read it however you like... maybe it was between the lines or something but we "fundies" missed it by only looking at the words :)

I freely admit I missed it by only looking at the black and white words in the text, I see the trees, but missed the forest.

So I am still wondering what your justification is for reading whatever you like from the bible - for seeing Skyscrapers instead of trees?

Just teasing you. Well....sort of, but not really. ;)

I always take it with a smile :)

Any old iron-y? You have to laugh... as an old song appears in my head.

Lee
 

Been almost too busy to blog. Sorry!

Re, "I still would like to know where in the bible it says you can read it however you like... maybe it was between the lines or something but we "fundies" missed it by only looking at the words :)"

Well, look harder. Becasue the notion that "the" Bible is a single piece of writing that must be taken as a whole, or rejected as a whole, is nowhere in the Bible itself. And the fundies might argue that this is a matter of interpretation, but I disagree: They say that a verse or two makes reference to "all Scripture" being unassailable because it's the Word of God. The Word of God part is a matter of foundational interpretation, but the assertion that those few verses referring to "all Scripture" are referring to the collection of writings now known as "the Bible" -- to say that the Bible is what those verses are referring to is bullshit on its face -- I mean, without a bunch of voo doo thrown in -- because not only did "the Bible" as we know it not exist at the time those lines were scribbled, but not all of the writings eventually written that later became the Bible were written yet.

Dang. I think I've made an argument with someone other than yourself. The habit, which you've exhibtied more than a few tims, yerself, is easy to catch. :-)
 

Re, "now what? ... where in this article does it say who is right in their interpretation? It really seems to be saying you can read the bible how the hell you like and take whatever meaning you like from it because it will not be wrong – it was meant to be read that way or something. To me this would imply the message in the bible is vague – the author thinks this is a good thing?"

Just wanted yer thoughts. Thanks for sharing. This obsession with being "right" is another trait you share with fundies. I'm just sayin' ... None of us are "right." Many of us are close -- maybe most of us, and when I'm feeling especially Jesusy I say ALL of us are close -- and that's close enough for Godwork. Any yahoo who claims he has it RIGHT, is a buffoon.

St. Paul suggested that we should be "fools for Christ," not effing morons.
 

"So I am still wondering what your justification is for reading whatever you like from the bible"

Funny, that accusation is just as wrong when you make it as when the fundies make it. And I've heard that line *word for word* right here on this blog from some of them.

Nicely done. ;)
 

This obsession with being "right" is another trait you share with fundies.

Speaking for myself, I don't have an obsession with being right. I have an obsession with trying to understand why other declare that they are right on a whole range of issues based on what is clearly some very shaky evidence - an inconsistent book. It seems to me that this rightness comes from an interpretation of the book, combined with gut feelings. What I see from this that it is all nothing but gut feelings, as if anyone can pick whatever suits them from a book, what value is the book? You might just as well provide people with blank pages on which they can write their own doctrine and claim it is God-inspired.

As a scientist, I think it matters to try and be right about how life appeared, and how the universe arose, and how our minds work, and what our future in the universe should be. It seems frankly astonishing to me that anyone can put any trust at all in a book written millenia ago. The only way to try to understand reality is to start from the simplest possible premises and work up carefully.

But perhaps that is just me :)
 

I don't know to put this any clearer, and I have said this numerous times:

"The Bible" is a book only because the various and disparate writings were collected together AS a book. I don't rate each writing asd equal to each other writing. I don't "pick and choose" -- I use what I consider legitimate Christian scholarship, as well as tradition, in determining how to accept the different writings.

And, as I've said before, I'm all FOR opening up the Canon. I'd drop the Revelation to apocryphal status, and I'd make the Epistle of James the centerpiece writing of the Christian faith. ... I might even knock the entire Old Testament to apocryphal status -- because I am a Christian, not a Jew.

But that's just me. :-)
 

I use what I consider legitimate Christian scholarship, as well as tradition, in determining how to accept the different writings.

I find this really fascinating.

How do you determine the appropriate scolarship and tradition?

This is really what I honestly don't get.

There is this book, and it is supposed to be divinely inspired. Yet there are a hundreds (at the very least) of different traditions.

In science, and in mathematics, we don't propose interpretations of evidence unless those can be subject to independent vertification.

Mathematics and science can be verified independent of tradition. So why trust tradition at all for an understanding of the bible? How is it an aid to truth?
 

"How do you determine the appropriate scolarship and tradition?"

All this talk about "appropriate scholarship" is interesting.

You know folks, there is an entire, quite mature field of study out there called "discourse analysis." It is apparently something our visitors have never heard of, as at least one of them apparently argues in another thread argues that texts do not require interpretation (and/or at least that a text could be generated using human language that wouldn't require human interpretation. Either way, neither point makes sense.)

Anyway, this field really does exist. Heck, people can even get degrees in it! In this field of study -- that apparently no one has heard of -- people do the same thing they do in other fields: they develop methods, they argue about what constitutes evidence, they discuss and analyze various genres, and they make conclusions which they debate, argue, agree upon, etc. etc., etc.

It ain't rocket science, and just because (apparently) people are unfamiliar with the methods and conclusions of the scholarly analysis of texts doesn't mean it's all just magic. ;)

So, let's take for example, a genre analysis of a particular text, one area of discourse analysis. Folks that do this kind of work have analyzed many and various texts both modern and historical and they have come up with some general sorts of categories that many texts fall into. If a text contains all or most of the agreed upon traits of a particular genre, these folks put it in that genre. Again, not rocket science. This is how we determine the difference between say, poetry and narrative. Within narrative it is also how we can tell the difference between science writing and science fiction. It's how we know when to take something seriously, or recognize sarcasm. It's how we know the difference between literal language and poetic license (Sorry Robert Frost, but nature's first green is not, actually made of gold, it's just plant cells and cellulose and water and chlorophyll and some plant sugars and stuff.)

What constitutes appropriate scholarship in the field of discourse analysis is decided in the same way as any other field. Folks agree on it. Just as in my field, chemistry, folks agree upon what does and does not constitute appropriate evidence that you have synthesized some particular new compound. At one time it was only elemental analysis. But eventually all sorts of methods were invented to provide additional evidence. But, those methods were accepted only after the community of practice became convinced that those methods would give reliable & valid results.

Again, it isn't rocket science. It's just how scholarship works.

So, with regards to the Bible and genre analysis, it is often pretty clear when the writer(s) were writing poetry, for example, versus narrative verses theological discourse, etc. Now our literalist, fundamentalist, atheist friends might want to suppose that when God shelters us with his wings, as the Psalmist writes (36:7), that the writer means God is a great big Chicken. :) However, those of us who see the Bible like any other piece of human writing, and Biblical writers as people like any other humans, understand that it is nothing but cultural arrogance to believe they would be so stupid. That is, I'm guessing that even though they were not British and living in the early 21st Century, those poor backward Jews were probably clever enough to know about poetry and its uses, even without having ever read Shakespeare. ;) Heck, even us poor dumb colonists can figure that one out. LOL

In the same way, a careful reading of the text often displays when someone is using hyperbole, (yes, it is shocking, but they'd invented that back even then!), metaphor, simile, sarcasm, irony, and other literary devices.

Appropriate scholarship also depends on the very best in linguistics scholarship we have today. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Josephus, Homer, or Isaiah, it is crucial to understand the language in which the text was written. That also seems like another way to judge "appropriate scholarship."

In other words, if someone is trying to explain the meaning of a particular part of Scripture and they don't consult and/or reference the original languages, it may not be "appropriate scholarship". If someone is trying to explain the meaning of a particular part of Scripture and they don't recognize the difference between poetry and narrative, then it may not be "appropriate scholarship." Those are just a few clues to consider when looking for "appropriate scholarship"

Including in that mix an understanding of cultural anthropology, the politics of the time, economics of the time, the climate, the agriculture, etc., etc., etc, also gets one to something closer to "appropriate scholarship" of the Bible.

So contrary to what some have charged here and in other threads, you can't really make the Bible say anything you want. I suppose you can try, and many do. But I think pretty much any reasonably intelligent person would recognize, for example, that trying to claim that God is a Giant Chicken based on a couple sentences in the Psalms is foolish.
 

As it is your blog, I am perfectly happy to cease discussion if you feel that is appropriate.

However, as someone who has an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in biology, a B.Sc. biochemistry, and decades of postdoctoral work, I really feel I can't let someone get away with claiming that the kind of evidence one gets in science (or even mathematics) is the same as that involved in interpretation of books like the bible.

I wonder if perhaps I am not making my point well.

I am not talking about learned discussions on when and who may have written certain passages, or when and how those passages were translated.

What I am talking about is how the texts in the Bible which describe happenings which are be considered impossible by other areas of learning (say, physics) can be interpreted as being true.

You see, on the one hand we have centuries of finding out how to study the universe using reason. On the other hand we have words in a book. How are these weighed up against each other?

I think it is acceptable to consider someone a literalist of sorts if they believe that texts in the Bible that describe supernatural events are literally true.

I am fascinated as to how such claims of truth are made, and what the justification for them is.
 

I guess I don't understand why 1., one would consider the methodologies of science and math to be superior to all other approaches to the truth; or, and especially, 2., why one would use the methodologies of science and math in the pursuit of theological-philosophical truth, or even linguistic studies, for that matter -- although I do recognizes that High Math, as a philosophy, could come into play.
 

OK, this is funny:

"As it is your blog, I am perfectly happy to cease discussion if you feel that is appropriate."

Where DOES this mild form of martyrdom come from? No one has suggested that anyone cease discussion. Jesus! So to speak.

Bring. It. On.

Howfver, we *are* talking past one another. The academic disciplines rarely can communicate with one another, mainly because each one thinks the other is superior to all others and so clouds up its ideas with its own jargon, it's like speaking different dialects of the same language.

But, by no means do I want to see anything on this blog cease because I think it's "inappropriate" or because I disagree with it, or don't like it.

So quit with the pre-apologizing and rock on.
 

Ask Itzhak Bars how firm a foundation today's assumptions about Life, the Universe and Everything are based!
 

My opinion is that the methodologies of science and logic/mathematics aren't really that special. There are simply the approaches that have been shown to be the best way not to be fooled. We are easily fooled because our minds aren't that good. Common sense often fails when we deal with reality (just consider the brain-stretching nature of quantum mechanics). So, we combine Ockham's Razor with a search for evidence to find out as best we can what is really going on.

This is a generally applicable technique. It works for everything from literary analysis and linguistics to particle physics.

Philosophical truth has to give way to science where they clash. An example is arguments about causality, which gets problematic in a reality with quantum mechanics and chaotic interactions, and in which spacetime is stretchable.

The theological approach is problematic as it assumes that supernatural entities exist.
 

Others know my character. There is no martyrdom involved. I am just concerned about good manners. I am happy to argue vigorously with someone who is happy to accept that. On the other hand, I feel it would be rude to rant on if someone did not approve...
 

"However, as someone who has an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in biology, a B.Sc. biochemistry, and decades of postdoctoral work, I really feel I can't let someone get away with claiming that the kind of evidence one gets in science (or even mathematics) is the same as that involved in interpretation of books like the bible."

Of course it isn't the same. Nor is it necessarily better or worse. I can't use science to critique a great work of art, but it hardly means that a great work of art can't be critiqued, nor does it mean that a great critique cannot be made about great works of art.

If you really want to have some fun, I'd suggest looking at wealth of papers that have been published that use discourse analysis methods to examine scientific papers. :) Or, take a look at how anthropologists view our work as physical scientists, vs. the stories we tell ourselves about it. Pretty interesting stuff. Naive realism ABOUT our chosen fields is as useless as naive realism WITHIN our chosen fields. ;)

The type of evidence we demand in chemistry is not even the same type of evidence demanded by biochemists. (When was the last time a biochemist had to do an elemental analysis on a particular strand of RNA to prove it's structure? How about IR? Heck, you guys don't even do NMR most of the time.) Why would that be the case? Does that mean elemental analysis, IR, or NMR are flawed techniques? Not at all. Does it mean that the conclusions made by biochemists are less trustworthy than those made by us real chemists? Nope. Nor does it mean that techniques used by biochemists are flawed either. Different fields of study utilize different forms of evidence. So?

Also, Steve, you keep talking about truth and science. Science does not operate on truth. Science is about knowledge. As someone who also has more letters after his name than in them, if someone has led you to believe that science is about the business of truth, they mislead you.

You're looking for truth? Go to a philosophy department, they've been looking for it for centuries too. :)

We scientists build models of how things work. They're not "true" any more than a globe is a "true" representation of the Earth. Heck, sometimes they're just downright false. Architects for example commonly assume that two plumb lines are parallel. That's patently false on a sphere. Yet it doesn't really matter unless you're building something the size of an aircraft carrier. Then the "truth" gets a little more important.

Or as Kevin Throop III said, "Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An incorrect model can be a useful tool."

The premise that the Earth is the center of the universe is not the "truth" but it works. That's the way with our scientific models, even our best ones are, I would hope you'd admit, are still in some ways incomplete and flawed.

"The theological approach is problematic as it assumes that supernatural entities exist."

That's only a problem if all you've got is science. But as Twain said, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. :)
 

Science is certainly about truth. It is about how you approach it, and significantly, when you abandon a particular route to finding it. You can never be sure you have found truth, but science provides a pretty good way of trying to head in the right direction.

It is also about how you start to look, and when you realise that you may need to step back a bit and realise that your supposedly simple starting point in building your theory is actually more complex than necessary.

We aren't here talking about navigation by the stars, or assumptions of parallel plumblines.

Either Christ resurrected or he didn't. Either Mary was a virgin, or she wasn't. Either the universe was created by a supernatural being, or it wasn't. One doesn't approach these matters with subtle refinements of theories in the way that Galilean relativity was replaced by Einsteinian. Either Jesus came back from the dead, or this is just a "useful" myth.

So, let's get back to the matter at hand.

How do you judge the truth of the resurrection (for example)? Or does this all dissolve into some form of post-modernist matter of interpretation where "truth" is just a matter of opinion?

(From Steve, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. :)
 

"Science is certainly about truth. "

Not even remotely.

Name one scientific theory that is "the truth", that is, one theory that is exactly a perfect description of the phenomenon it attempts to explain.

Is quantum mechanics "the truth". No, of course not. Everyone realizes that quantum mechanics and general relativity can't both be true. We need a better model. That won't be true either, but it will be closer to explaining all of our evidence. And so it will continue to go on and on, as we continue to build better, more sophisticated models.

If science is about seeking truth, then tell me, in all the time we've had to investigate the natural world, is there one scientific theory, even one, that is now been demonstrated to be a perfect understanding of the phenomenon it explains? In other words, just one theory that is "the truth"?

Of course there isn't, because science about knowledge. It's about finding enough facts and evidence to support a reasonable story about how we think things work, whether or not that is actually HOW they work. Again, just because our theories explain most of the facts does not mean that our theories are even remotely close to *the Truth*. Celestial navigation is an excellent example of that.

"We aren't here talking about navigation by the stars, or assumptions of parallel plumblines."

So, remind me again, why exactly is it appropriate to just throw out completely reasonable examples that support my thesis but disprove yours? ;) Oh, right...because we're being "rational" and looking at the "evidence." ;)

"post-modernist matter of interpretation where "truth" is just a matter of opinion?"

I'd suggest you do some reading on post-modernism. I'm sure late at night while stoned and drunk, some first year grad student in the back of a bar makes the claim that "hey, dudes, truth...is just a matter of opinion!" But serious scholars do not share that opinion. Interesting that once again we find another commonality between the atheists and the fundies -- a common misunderstanding of real postmodernism. And they even build precisely the same straw-men! :)

If we can't even agree on the basic notion that science is not about truth when we supposedly have a common frame of reference (we're both scientists) then I think it will be harder to agree about things on which we have no common frame of reference, like faith, right?

(BTW, notice that two (I'm assuming) very qualified scientists do not agree about the basic nature of science. Interesting that it isn't all as monolithic as some people claim, eh?)
 

Alan said: "Or as Kevin Throop III said, "Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An incorrect model can be a useful tool.""

This is perhaps the best working model of every religion on earth today and yesterday and probably tomorrow. They are not right, but they are correct within context. Except for MY Relgion (what ever that might actually be) because it is better and more correct than all the rest.
 

Oh, drlobojo, you're once again at least two steps ahead. I was going to bring this quote back later because that was going to be my point about religion too, if and when got past arguing about the nature of science. :)
 

We can discuss the nature of science. But if you don't believe it is remotely about truth, then I am going to have to accept that you enter aircraft (assuming you do fly) relying primarily on faith, and not the science of aerodynamics.

Let's get back to a specific point.

A Christian presumably believes that Jesus rose from the dead. Apart from some truly obscure theological handwaving that I have come across, that really does mean that there is a belief that a fellow called Jesus actually died (and could presumably have been certified as such by a doctor), and a few days later, against everything we know understand about physics, biology and thermodynamics, his biochemistry and cellular structure re-constituted and he walked around again.

Presumably, you believe that. If you do, I would be interested to know why you believe it, and how you feel that is compatible (if at all) with science.

In other words, why is that text in the Bible true, as against just a story.
 

This is perhaps the best working model of every religion on earth today and yesterday and probably tomorrow. They are not right, but they are correct within context.

So the resurrection of Jesus is only correct within contect?
 

"We can discuss the nature of science. But if you don't believe it is remotely about truth, then I am going to have to accept that you enter aircraft (assuming you do fly) relying primarily on faith, and not the science of aerodynamics."

False dichotomy. Surely you know that's a logical fallacy, right?

I enter an aircraft knowing that we have a very good explanation for how aerodynamics work. It is an explanation that has been tested over and over and over and over and over again over the last century. Every time a plane takes off, it is a testament to just how good that understanding is. But, is it a perfect understanding of how the world really works (ie. the Truth)? Of course not. As you may have noticed, aircraft designs have undergone and continue to undergo significant refinement even in this advanced day and age. If we'd struck upon "the truth" a hundred years ago, a decade ago, or even last year, it would seem to me that all that tinkering wouldn't be necessary.

The very fact that scientific theories are always improving is proof that none of them has gotten to "the truth" yet.

Again, you didn't address my points. Rather than address my examples, you ignore them, then create another one which I also use to refute your position.

Interestingly enough, I was just skimming one of the atheist blogs you folks use, a blog by some guy named Billy. Anyway they're having a conversation in a current post about how people refuse to admit that they're wrong. Of course, they say that it's a particular problem for people of faith. Apparently not. ;)
 

Or to put all that more succinctly, Kenneth Miller, a biologist who was also the plantiff's lead expert witness in the Dover case said, ".. no theory in science, no theory, is ever regarded as absolute truth. We don't regard atomic theory as truth. We don't regard the germ theory of disease as truth. We don't regard the theory of friction as truth. We regard all of these theories as well-supported, testable explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomena."
 

I agree science can't reach absolute truths. What I said was that it helps point you in the right direction.

There is a good reason why we need to use it to investigate reality. We are just apes, who have only recently evolved intelligence. There is no reason to believe that our unaided minds have the capacity to come up with any idea of what is actually going on. The strangeness of what we have discovered in physics over the past century shows how science, with its processes for exploration, have achieved far more than common sense and theology could ever have managed.

Investigation without at least a scientific approach has no controls. It consists of starting where you like and sort of wandering about a bit, hoping things make sense. What science does is to deal (to some extent) with gullibility and wishful thinking.

Any progress with deciding what you believe about the resurrection? :)
 

To put it more succinctly....

Just because science isn't perfect, doesn't mean that it is reasonable to believe just anything. It doesn't give you a free pass to give up biology and physics when you like to fit in miracles.
 

"What I said was that it helps point you in the right direction."

No, what you said is, quote, "Science is certainly about truth."

But it isn't. Nor does it always point you in the right direction. Our explanations get better and better, but that doesn't mean they get more and more truthful. In my work I certainly never sit around an solve the Shroedinger Equation just for the fun of it in order to figure out how a reaction is going to go. Other much more simple, but also much less accurate models of atoms are actually far more useful. But like Celestial navigation based on the Earth as the center of the Universe, it's a model that works well.

So then, if we base our models/theories on how well they work, even if they work perfectly and explain everything how do we know they're the "truth"? We don't. Because to know that we would need a frame of reference that allowed us to know both the "truth" itself AND the theories' relationship (or not) to that truth. But since you'd likely claim the only way to know that truth is via those very same theories, it isn't ever possible to know how well our theories match up with the Truth.

"Just because science isn't perfect, doesn't mean that it is reasonable to believe just anything."

I agree that science isn't perfect but that it is usually very, very good. I also agree that it's weaknesses do not mean that one can discount it, or that one can believe anything.

However just because faith isn't perfect doesn't mean that it's reasonable to disbelieve everything either. You're assuming that being a person of faith gives one licence to believe "anything." That's as flawed as saying that a person of science cannot possibly know how to love another person because it cannot be accurately measured. Let's not stereotype either science nor faith, shall we?

"It doesn't give you a free pass to give up biology and physics when you like to fit in miracles."

Well, I hate to be a snot, but if they were explainable by biology and physics they wouldn't be miracles now would they? LOL

But that's odd that you'd say that. See, I can give up biology and physics when I stop by an art museum. Therein I see plenty of things I can't explain, nor could I replicate. I can give up biology and physics to listen to a lovely concerto. In fact, there are all sorts of areas of human knowledge that don't require even the smallest understanding of either biology or physics. (Even as a chemist, I try to avoid both whenever possible.) Strange that you see Faith as a special case in which we are required -- unlike all sorts of other areas of knowledge -- to consult science. (Not to mention all those people in the past who have lived througout history who didn't even have to give up either our modern biological or physical knowledge because it hadn't been invented yet. Yet they somehow got along just fine without our current level of biological or physical knowledge.)

Rather arrogant view of the rest of human knowledge, isn't it?

"Any progress with deciding what you believe about the resurrection? :)"

Well, I've been thinking about it for the last 36 years or so, minus a few when I was still pre-verbal. And the rest of humankind has been thinking about it for at least 2000 years. But when we make a decision we'll let you know. :)

For my part, anything I'd say about it would just be a theory anyway. A theory, based on an interpretation of someone else's writing, about something they didn't necessarily experience first-hand themselves. Probably not the sort of thing you'd take very seriously. Heh.

An answer like that kinda nips all that fun you were hoping to have in the bud doesn't it? :)
 

Triple A baseball beckons (Go Oklahoma RedHawks!), so I am skipping over some commnets for the moment, since I'm in a hurry, but I have to point out something.

Steve has described "rususcitation," not "Resurrection" as it's understood in Christianity. No one that I know claims that the man, Jesus, from Nazareth, died and then came back to life. They say that in some way, Jesus died, and then was resurrected as ChristJesus, as St. Paul puts it.

Something way more than biology, physics, flesh and blod was involved. That's the claim -- not than a man died and came back to life.

It's obviously more complex than that. But the Risen Christ is part of my daily life experience. So, it's not just that I "believe" it like I may or may not "believe" that Jesus walked on water. I claim that Jesus rode with me in my truck just more than a year ago as I drove to Arkansas to see my dying mother for the last time on this mortal coil. Didn't see him, dang it. But it was as real as this experience of communication with you now, Steve, and I don't see you.

Off to the game!
 

Hi Steve,

The only way to try to understand reality is to start from the simplest possible premises and work up carefully.

But perhaps that is just me :)

Gets my vote :)

You seem to be saying what I thinking on this thread, but writing it so much better than I could.

+++

Hi all,

I’ll enjoy reading this thread from the sidelines I think – lots of good stuff – and best of all it isn’t me doing all the typing.

Well done, Alan, ER, Steve and all – the discussion is great.

Keep it coming.

Lee
 

Just my few cent worth into the discussion…

Alan wrote:
It is apparently something our visitors have never heard of, as at least one of them apparently argues in another thread argues that texts do not require interpretation

What a fool that person must be :)

I mean, all of us here I assume will be reading an English translation of the bible and not the original language? – so of course there has been interpretation this is what translations do.

Sorry Alan, were you talking about me? Surely not… :)

Alan wrote:
Sorry Robert Frost, but nature's first green is not, actually made of gold, it's just plant cells and cellulose and water and chlorophyll and some plant sugars and stuff

Cool, don’t get to talk about poetry much - I like the poem called ‘Fire and Ice’ by Robert Frost – it seems to talk about the end of universe, well it was introduced to me in an astrophysics lecture.

RE: "Any progress with deciding what you believe about the resurrection? :)"

Alan wrote:
Well, I've been thinking about it for the last 36 years or so, minus a few when I was still pre-verbal. And the rest of humankind has been thinking about it for at least 2000 years. But when we make a decision we'll let you know. :)

You haven’t made a decision what is considered by many Christians to be the most fundamental part of their religion?

Take your time then :)

ER wrote:
"Resurrection" as it's understood in Christianity. No one that I know claims that the man, Jesus, from Nazareth, died and then came back to life. They say that in some way, Jesus died, and then was resurrected as ChristJesus, as St. Paul puts it.

I’m still trying to work out if Jesus was supposed to have come back in the flesh, or just in spirit?

Was it the same body or a different one or not at all?

I don’t think his disciplines recognise him did they and Thomas certainly doubted it. The empty tomb story was not mention by Paul I don’t think plus this tale gets increasing more detailed as time goes by – almost as if someone is making it up as they go along and adding bits that suit them.

All interesting stuff..

Hope the game went well for ya ER :)

Lee
 

My love of the scientific technique is that there is the ability to step back even from the most well-established theories, and accept that they are wrong, and different (hopefully simpler) ideas are more useful in understanding the evidence. Science kicks away the crutches of ideas that have become too dependent on wishful thinking and "interpretation".

There aren't many routes to the truth. Not really. The only path that has proved truly useful (and productive beyond our wildest dreams) is scientific rationalism. It has revealed a reality vastly bigger and stranger than anything that theology and words in old books have managed. Religion and theology are a form of navel-gazing. We limit ourselves to what our feeble minds can conceive of the universe, and it is a very self-centred approach (note how God supposedly sent his only son, to us). It may be appropriate to consider the world to be at the centre of things when you are doing celestial navigation, but how vastly innapropriate it surely is to consider Homo sapiens to be the pinnacle of "God's creation"?

Centuries ago, there would have been far less problem about believing in the resurrection. It was thought that living material had some "vital spark" that separated it from non-living substance, and this was a pretty simple substance. Now we know of biochemistry, and entropy. We know how complex the cell is, and that it can't just be put back together when it breaks down after death.

A good rational approach to that would be that resurrection/ressucitation stories (whatever you want to call them) are mistaken. There is a simpler answer. The story is a myth.

That is what we do as scientists. In fact, not just as scientists, but as people trained to search for what is really going on in the world. I put it to you that anyone rational coming to the Bible without previous exposure would have not the slightest doubt that the resurrection text was mythical, especially if they had encountered the stories of Ra and Mithra and Dionysus. However, because we have understandable emotional attachments to our religions, we take the irrational approach: we build layers of complexity onto the story to attempt to justify it even though our modern knowledge should really leave us in little doubt as to its falsehood.

Other kinds of distortion of rationality are claims that there are "different kinds of knowledge" appropriate for religion. Sure, there are different ways of understanding things in life, but they should be compatible. We can appreciate art in a non-scientific way, but we don't talk about some extra special "art-magic" that is somehow there in addition to the paint and canvas. The problem with religion is that it does conflict with our scientific understanding. When Christ came back from death, it was supposedly biochemistry, physics and some extra special "God Magic". Religion is adding extra complexity, and with no justification other than, when it comes down to it - words in a book.

If you are going to allow "God Magic" for the resurrection, then people are entitled to ask why you aren't allowing "God Magic" to allow for the "truth" of other sections of the Bible. Why not allow seas to part?

How does textual analysis and scholarly investigation determine where the magic works, and where it doesn't?
 

Lee, Re, "I’m still trying to work out if Jesus was supposed to have come back in the flesh, or just in spirit?"

Me, too.


Re, "Was it the same body or a different one or not at all?"

Don't know.


Re, "I don’t think his disciplines recognise him did they and Thomas certainly doubted it."


True enough, so it is written.


Re, "The empty tomb story was not mention by Paul I don’t think plus this tale gets increasing more detailed as time goes by – almost as if someone is making it up as they go along and adding bits that suit them."

Actuallym I agree with you, but, of course, I wouldn't say they were making it up any more than I am when I say that it sucked that my team lost night (no actual sucking took place), and that my truck boiled over and it limped home (it did boil over, but it didn't literally "limp" home, although I took it real slow.) I'm adding to the story to try to make it clearer -- but I might very well have clouded it. I think something like that is one way to look at the increasing complex stories of the Resurrection.

Speaking of: To the other comments anon. I have to go see if I can get my truck fixed for less than an arm and a leg. (Oops. Don't take that literally. Just seriously.) :-)
 

Hi ER,

Actuallym I agree with you, but, of course, I wouldn't say they were making it up any more than I am when I say that it sucked that my team lost night (no actual sucking took place),

The examples you gave would be referring to translation issues and the use of language. The differences in the story of the empty tomb are a little worse than aren’t they?

Do I need to re-read the passages again? I’m sure they talk about different people going to the tomb and “seeing” it empty and where they first "see" Jesus and all that.

Lee
 

One thing you need to keep in mind is that the Resurrection happened. Of course I mean "I believe" the Resurrection happened. I'm not sure of the details. It obviously, to me anyway, had to have involved much more than a resuscitated body.

What became of Jesus is the very nut of Christianity: He resurrected. Some of us believe it was a bodily resuscitation "plus" a spiritual aspect. Some of us believe it was totally "spiritual." Some of us believe the Resurrection occurred -- and occurs today -- "in the hearts of men." And some believe the Body of Christ itself -- that is, human beings alive right now are the Resurrected Christ.

I personally accept those who profess any of them as brothers.

In my opinon, to drill down into the story to the specific part about whether the dead, bruised, pierced, bloodied, broken body Jesus down from the Cross sprung back to life, as we understand it -- and presumably, as someone occasionally points out, all the sloughed-off skin cells, hair and nails scattered across Palestine from Jesus's 33 years of living -- is to miss the forest for one tree.

He lives. That's all that matters to me.

Dang it, you devil, dealing with this comment is going to make me late for church. :-) LOL
 

ER-

But that's odd that you'd say that. See, I can give up biology and physics when I stop by an art museum. Therein I see plenty of things I can't explain, nor could I replicate. I can give up biology and physics to listen to a lovely concerto.

No, this isn't true. You aren't giving up biology and physics when you visit an art museum.

You aren't saying that in order to appreciate art, biology and physics must be wrong.

But that is precisely what you are doing with religion.

Strange that you see Faith as a special case in which we are required -- unlike all sorts of other areas of knowledge -- to consult science.

It is a special case, as it is where science and reason are challenged. It is formalised gullibility. Religion is ritualised delusion, and it turns off parts of the mind that we would expect to be used in other areas of life. It bypasses the parts of the conscience that would normally prevent us from cutting up children's genitals, or bullying people of different sexual preference.

You may well say "that is not my religion", but by being a supporter of a religion of any kind, you are implying that being gullible is to be condoned.
 

Steve, you've misdirected your last to me; you should have directed to Alan.
 

ER-

Sorry. Consider it redirected :)
 

"But that is precisely what you are doing with religion."

Nope.

Sorry, the rest of your comments were simply annoying and I don't feel much need to continue a conversation with someone who is only interested, it seems, in silly name calling. I don't much appreciate it when the fundies do it, nor when the (fundie) atheists do it.

But then what do I know? Not much it seems, after all, I'm the delusional, gullible one. ;)

Thanks for the interesting conversation Steve, for as long as it lasted.

Fundamentalists, it seems, come in all stripes.
 

Sorry, the rest of your comments were simply annoying and I don't feel much need to continue a conversation with someone who is only interested, it seems, in silly name calling.

Sometimes challenging arguments can be annoying. That is part of the nature of debate.

But then what do I know? Not much it seems, after all, I'm the delusional, gullible one. ;)

We are all deluded, and we are all gullible. That is the nature of being human. We could probably not live our lives without some measure of them.

We know for certain that virtually all religion promotes delusion and gullibility. Just consider the number of creationists of all faiths, for example.

My point is that religion formalises such abandonment of reason. It turns it from a personal matter into something actively supported by culture and institutions. We have recently had in the UK an example of a cardinal stating that reason is dangerous. This is in a world in which we need far more reason, not less in our dealing with matters of global concern.

I thought the point I made about the difference between putting aside physics and biology and contradicting one was absolutely key, as it lies at the heart of how people try and combine religious faith with science.

Incidentally, I'm not a fundamentalist. I am sceptic. That is the precise opposite of a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist holds on to beliefs in the face of evidence. I try to see whether any belief can be supported by evidence. That may be extremely annoying, but it isn't fundamentalist.
 

"Sometimes challenging arguments can be annoying."

Nah. No problem there, nor did I see anywhere that you challenged my arguments. Perhaps my comment wasn't clear enough, but what I meant was that your name calling was annoying. Pointless name calling is annoying without actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.

"My point is that religion formalises such abandonment of reason. "

So? So does love. Just ask any parent. Yup, people would be completely rational without religion. LOL

But hey, you want to argue against religion? Be my guest, I'm not much of a fan of religion either.

"I thought the point I made about the difference between putting aside physics and biology and contradicting one was absolutely key,"

I'm sure you did, if you do say so yourself. LOL But no where did I say I was contradicting anything. Nice try, but arguing against things I don't believe is probably better done without me. ;)

"This is in a world in which we need far more reason, not less in our dealing with matters of global concern."

LOL Gotta love that statement. As if anyone would argue that the world needs less reason. Are you actually trying to imply that I believe we need less reason in the world? ROFL But I do appreciate irony. You want to make your personal devotion to reason "into something actively supported by culture and institutions." ;)

" I try to see whether any belief can be supported by evidence."

Uh huh. Evidence like scientific models that demonstrate science is not about the search for truth? Funny, when confronted by those examples, you simply ignored them. Sorry, you're no different than anyone else. I have no doubt that you're every bit as gullible and delusional as the rest of us. (See the previous thread for my fun little refutation of the notion that people actually make evidence-based decisions.)
 

LOL Gotta love that statement. As if anyone would argue that the world needs less reason.

I am afraid that this is precisely what Cardinal Cormack Murphy O'Connor said yesterday.

Are you actually trying to imply that I believe we need less reason in the world? ROFL But I do appreciate irony.

No, I was not implying that. I was pointing out that religion, and religious leaders, attempt to encourage less reason.

I'm sure you did, if you do say so yourself. LOL But no where did I say I was contradicting anything.

The discussion has the context of our understanding physics and biology begin contradicted by the resurrection. You then mentioned that you put aside such scientific approaches when you, say, visit an art gallery. My point was that this "putting aside" was not the same thing at all.


Perhaps my comment wasn't clear enough, but what I meant was that your name calling was annoying.

You seem to confuse an attack on the nature of religion with a personal attack.

So? So does love. Just ask any parent. Yup, people would be completely rational without religion. LOL

I never claimed people would be totally rational without religion. I am not sure they would necessarily be much less irrational without it. The problem with religion is that it sees irrationalism as a virtue, and people are praised for "faith".

Uh huh. Evidence like scientific models that demonstrate science is not about the search for truth? Funny, when confronted by those examples, you simply ignored them

They weren't evidence for this point. If I remember them right, they were simply examples that people use approximations.

I have no doubt that you're every bit as gullible and delusional as the rest of us.

Yet another statement backed by no evidence :)

Funny how defense of religion so often ends up with at attempt to claim that atheists are "just as bad as believers". Not a very good way to justify religion, I feel.
 

"I am afraid that this is precisely what Cardinal Cormack Murphy O'Connor said yesterday."

Well, then my suggestion would be to go take it up with the Good cardinal. FYI, I'm not him. Sorry, thought that was obvious enough. Apparently not.

Holding an entire group of people responsible for the ideas/thoughts/actions of one is a logical fallacy, as I'd assumed you knew. So much for "rationality", eh? ;)

"The problem with religion is that it sees irrationalism as a virtue, and people are praised for "faith". "

Assuming "faith" is necessarily "irrational."

But again, criticize religion all you want. As I said, I'm rarely a fan.

"They weren't evidence for this point. If I remember them right, they were simply examples that people use approximations."

Or you just rationalize your way around them. LOL Ignore, rationalize. Remember "rationalize" isn't the same as "rational." ;)

"Yet another statement backed by no evidence."

Meh. It's an opinion. You've made plenty of statements without evidence as well. Such as the ludicrous notion that people would be more rational without religion.

"Not a very good way to justify religion, I feel."

Sorry, I'm not sure I attempted to justify religion anywhere in this thread.

You're the guy coming here to challenge. I'm just answering questions. You're the guy trying to justify his positions. I'm just responding to them.
 

I guess we could make this all easier:

You are accusing me of having faith.

Guilty.

So what.
 

Holding an entire group of people responsible for the ideas/thoughts/actions of one is a logical fallacy, as I'd assumed you knew. So much for "rationality", eh? ;)

I am not holding an entire group responsibility for the actions or ideas of one. I am holding groups responsibility for supporting religious infrastructures that give people like the Cardinal a public voice, and giving him respect purely because of his status as a man of faith.

Assuming "faith" is necessarily "irrational."

It's not a rational way to back ideas.

You are accusing me of having faith.

Guilty.

So what.

How does faith work as a way to determine the accuracy or otherwise, and the validity or otherwise of certain passages in the bible?

I believe that was the topic under discussion.
 

Re, "The discussion has the context of our understanding physics and biology (being) contradicted by the resurrection."

I'd say the Resurrection blows aways all past and future assumptions, and conclusions, about physics and biology. It happens. Sending a human bean into space blew away same; we just don't see it that way because we got there little by little.

You might say Jesus was ahead of our time.
 

"give people like the Cardinal a public voice"

And here I thought anyone should have the right to a public voice. I don't agree with him any more than you do, so if you're looking for me to defend his comments, you'll be waiting for quite a while. And, if you expect me to spend a lot of time defending organized religion, you'll be waiting even longer. But I do however recognize his right to free speech.

"It's not a rational way to back ideas."

Meh. Neither are emotions. But I don't see people spending a lot of wasted energy trying to argue against them.

"How does faith work as a way to determine the accuracy or otherwise, and the validity or otherwise of certain passages in the bible?"

Not very well, I'd say, given how often people of faith differ on many passages in the Bible. :)

You see that as a problem. That's your right of course. But why it's a problem for you when you're not a person of faith is a mystery to me.
 

I'd say the Resurrection blows aways all past and future assumptions, and conclusions, about physics and biology. It happens. Sending a human bean into space blew away same; we just don't see it that way because we got there little by little.

This just isn't true. Sending a human (or bean) into space was done using Newtonian physics. Nothing about it refuted any assumptions of those physics or of biology. The little-by-little was to do with technology, not science.

To throw away entire areas of science, even for a miracle, would require extraordinary evidence. There has been no such evidence.
 

And here I thought anyone should have the right to a public voice.

Anyone should have the right to a public voice. But their views should be subjected to the same degree of argument as anyone else. Religious leaders usually aren't subjected to this, because it is considered taboo, or at least very rude, to question faith.

Meh. Neither are emotions. But I don't see people spending a lot of wasted energy trying to argue against them.

There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions.
 

Re, "There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions."

Marriage.


Now, anyone can enter into a contract (except gay people cannot enter into a marriage contract, but it will come), but the institution os marriage itself is based on the emotion of love. Those that last do so because of the act of will called "commitment." But virtually no one agrees to marry someone without love involved.


Then there the entire greeting card industry. An institution of a different sort. Sound decision to buy someone a card if you love them.


Hmmm.

Porn. Is lust an emotion? Not sure.


Just rambling here.
 

"Religious leaders usually aren't subjected to this, because it is considered taboo, or at least very rude, to question faith."

And I agree that's wrong. So your point is?

"There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions."

Yeah there is. It's called the "science" of psychology.
 

"There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions.""

Gambling?
 

LOL. Dr. ER would skin yer hide for this!

"Yeah there is. It's called the "science" of psychology."

LOL. Now, she has no use for clinical psych. Hers is experimental psych. -- big student of the brain as an organ, neurons, etc.

I wish I could tell you exactly what her dissertation was on, but I think so relatively few people are into it, I'd rather not for anonymity's sake. Nothing *that* sexy, though. Had to do with certain kinds of commercially used chemicals and how they inadvertently affect the socialization of certain kinds of critters. Experiments and everything. That's science, buddy! :-)
 

Re, ""There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions.""


Modern free-market capitalism? Most people buy most goods and services not because they need it, but because it makes them happy to buy them, or sad to go without them.

This is a fun tangent!
 

Speaking of; I am going to the porch to make myelf happy with a $5 cigar, and to keep myself from being sad over my truck by distracting myself with a book.
 

LOL. Yes, my elf loves cigars!
 

"That's science, buddy!"

I'm clever enough not to argue with you about your wife. Call it clever or manners. :)

"I am going to the porch to make myelf happy with a $5 cigar, and to keep myself from being sad over my truck by distracting myself with a book."

And I'm signing off for the same reason. But with a dirty martini (gin w/ 3 gorgonzola stuffed olives.)

Enjoy your evening boys.
 

ER-

"Marriage?"

"Modern free-market capitalism?"

There are no formal structures for these "instiutions". There is no international Marriage organisation which dictates the lives of millions of people. I was also discussing emotion in general. The supposed "international Marriage organisation" would presumably not claim that unfettered emotion in general was a good idea, in the same way that religions organisations promote the general idea of "faith".
 

The states of the United States, and various nations and their provinces, do formally recognize the institution of marriage. Lordy, that's one of the things we've been fiercely arguing about over here, to our eventual regret, I think: Whether gay people whould be welcomed into the institution of marriage.

But, you apparently have a different definition or "institution," and, thanks for clarifying that you meant emotion in general.
 

But, you apparently have a different definition or "institution," and, thanks for clarifying that you meant emotion in general.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Something I find quite odd is the way that religious institutions tend to support other such institutions even when their beliefs are quite different, even conflicting. I rarely hear bishops talking specifically about their particular faith - they tend to talk about the need to respect "faith in general". It seems that what matters most is to believe in the supernatural. Specifics can be dealt with later.
 

Hi ER,

This thread is moving so quickly, I feel I shouldn’t comment on ‘old’ details since it could derail the far more interesting discussion you, Alan and Steve are having.

But just to let you know I am reading your comments still, and thanks.

ER wrote:-
Dang it, you devil, dealing with this comment is going to make me late for church. :-)

< mad evil laugher as lightning and thunder claps in the distance >

Lee
 

Just a few comments then...

Alan wrote:
RE: "How does faith work as a way to determine the accuracy or otherwise, and the validity or otherwise of certain passages in the bible?"

Not very well, I'd say, given how often people of faith differ on many passages in the Bible. :)

Interesting, this is precisely the argument I normally make against faith – we do agree on many things.

You see that as a problem. That's your right of course. But why it's a problem for you when you're not a person of faith is a mystery to me.

I only have a problem if people, who feel faith is a virtue or has anything to offer on the ‘path to truth’ and cannot offer any reason or evidence that will make them change their position, are involved in decisions that can affect the way of life of others in say the arena of health, education or “defence” for example.

If people’s faith in God affected me as much as their belief in a particular football team, then no problems :)

But hey, you want to argue against religion? Be my guest, I'm not much of a fan of religion either.

Again, us both not being a fan of organised religion could be another area we can agree.

Though I would like to understand, without religion, how you would ‘know’ about Jesus?

Religion and belief in Jesus are not the same then for you? How do you know what to believe about Jesus then?

Steve wrote:
Anyone should have the right to a public voice. But their views should be subjected to the same degree of argument as anyone else. Religious leaders usually aren't subjected to this, because it is considered taboo, or at least very rude, to question faith.

Well said Sir.

Maybe if we could talk about faith and religion on the same footing as politics then we will be on to something. We don’t treat politicians with ‘unarguable respect’, so why religious leaders?

Lee
 

"There is no international Marriage organisation which dictates the lives of millions of people."

Yes there is. Trust me. There most certainly is.

Otherwise my husband and I would be married.

Oh and as for this: ""There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions."

In addition to the ones we've already mentioned, here's another one: Politics.
 

Alan-

Perhaps you could give me the address of the headquarters of this institution of Marriage?

Or are you taking an abstract idea and trying to raise it to some kind of equivalence to, say, the Vatican?

Surely not :)

I do have sympathy for your state though (assuming you do want to get married). In the UK the arrangement for civil partnerships was so infinitesimaly close to that of "marriage" that my husband and I took advantage of it. We felt that rights and the excuse for a great party meant more than the use of the word "marriage".
 

Y'all and yer "abstract" this and "intuitive" that! :-)

I'm reviewing nominalist thinkers, of all dang things, and it's all yer fault, Steve! :-)
 

Don't blame me...It's not my fault. I have been corrupted. I have friends on other blogs and forums who regularly give me brainache with what I have to research... there are some people who require me to have wikipedia open for every post.

Still, good for the old grey matter, I guess.
 

"Perhaps you could give me the address of the headquarters of this institution of Marriage?"

Perhaps you could give me the address of the headquarters of Christianity. lol
 

If you want to know where doctrine is decided for billions of Christians, you would find it helpful to contact the following addresses:

Dr Rowan Williams,
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU

The Pope
Papal Basilica of St Peter
Vatican City

Unlike your attempts to hand-wave away the existence of institutions, religions groups are real bodies, with financial and political muscle.
 

Sorry Steve, but you can't argue on the one hand that Christians believe all sorts of different things, and then on the other hand, claim we're monolithic. Neither Rev. Williams, nor the Pope speak for all Christians. Not even close.

You originally stated, ""There is no formalised institution arguing that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions."

We've given several now. The fact that they don't collect membership dues does not mean there aren't, from a practical standpoint, plenty of institutions that advocate decision-making on the basis of something other than scientific evidence.

The US Republican Party does have membership dues, and a leader, and they've been advocating decision-making on the basis of something other than evidence (scientific or otherwise) for quite a while now. (And they're much more unified than Christians are.)
 

"Unlike your attempts to hand-wave away the existence of institutions, religions groups are real bodies, with financial and political muscle."

So's the pro-life lobby in the US. And the pro-choice lobby, and the anti-gay lobby, and any number of other groups that we've named.

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not arguing that religious groups are not real bodies. No hand waving there. I agree.

It is you who is dismissing any other example given. More rationalization perhaps?
 

You aren't giving examples. You are providing abstractions.

Religious institutions are real organisations with real power.

To start to waffle about "the institution of marriage" or "capitalism" is disingenuous.
 

I see why we disagree on so much. We can't even agree on basic, noncontroversial terms!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Religious institutions are real organisations with real power."

So are political parties. So are casinos. etc...

I guess if you want to define your terms to exclude everything but religious institutions, you're welcome to do so, but I'm not buying it.

From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter if there's actually a single all-powerful anti-gay marriage corporate office or not. Fact is, "they" are still quite effectively regulating marriage based on all sorts of ideas (some religious, many not) that are not supported by evidence.

The marketing industry may not have a single all-powerful corporate office either, but they do a good job of getting people to buy things based on impulses that often are not only not based on evidence, but run exactly counter to it.

And, I'll observe again that "religion" doesn't have a single corporate office either.

Seems like the test for whether or not there are institutions that argue "that we should base decisions on emotion because emotions are a sound basis for making decisions" is whether or not there is some large, concerted, often coordinated effort to do so, whether or not they happen to have a specific street address.

But then, as I said, political parties do indeed have a street address. They are indeed real organizations with real power. (As are casinos and marketing/advertising firms, just two other examples.)

So ignore the examples you don't like (though a decent reason to do so might be nice), but I'd say it would be pretty disingenuous to ignore all of them.
 

Alan-

The reason why your examples so far have been flawed have been clear. There are no international organisations for marriage (for example) that control the lives of billions.

Invoking political parties is inapropriate too - you can vote for them. You don't get to vote for the Pope, and we in the UK don't get to vote for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Invoking political parties is also missing the point again. I am not against national or international organisations in general. I am against those that promote unreason as virtue. I suggest you research the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the early 20th century. There are specific proclamations to theologists to resist any influence of science.
 

"Invoking political parties is also missing the point again. I am not against national or international organisations in general. I am against those that promote unreason as virtue."

Given that you're not in the US, then you might not be as familiar with how the Republican party has lately been promoting unreason as a virtue. And, unless you're very familiar with the code words they use to do this, you might have missed it. However, the continued Republican hatred of all things "Ivy League" and "elite" is basically exactly what you're talking about.

But you're clearly going to dismiss any examples that aren't religious. So....

"There are specific proclamations to theologists to resist any influence of science."

OK, well, I'm not Catholic.

Next question? :)
 

I do want to be fair to Steve, so I'll ask everyone else... does it seem like he's defining his terms in such a way so as to exclude all the other reasonable examples given? Or am I off base?

Or perhaps I could put this another way. Are you saying Steve that religious organizations are the *only* organizations in the entire history of human existence that simultaneously fit your definition of an "organization" while also "promote[ing] unreason as a virtue." Or can you think of another example or two, in order to clarify your point? Because I've offered many examples all of which, for some reason, didn't fit your definitions. So perhaps if you gave a few more examples, that would clarify what you mean.
 

Oh dear.

I describe how political parties aren't relevant, and I get a discussion of political parties.

I discuss theology of the Catholic Church and I get the response that you aren't a Catholic.

Why should I care about you being a Catholic? Hundreds of millions are, and they follow the irrationality of the Catholic church. This is a clear example of how religion promotes irrationality to the detriment of humanity. Why should your personal belief have anything to do with this?

Are you simply here for the sake of continuing with argumentative dialogue, or do you actually have a point?
 

Alan-
I am not just against religious organisations. I am against any organisation that promotes unreason. The problem with your argument is that you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between realities and abstractions, as illustrated by your bizarre example of the "institution of marriage". In the UK we have Archbishops writing strongly-worded letters to the Prime Minister. There is no international "President of Marriage" who does the equivalent.

You are attempting for reasons I can't determine, to defend religion by trying to equate its real and concrete influence with abstractions.

I will give you one more chance to debate on substance here, and then I will give up. I can see nothing of any value coming out of our current discussions.
 

"Are you simply here for the sake of continuing with argumentative dialogue, or do you actually have a point?"

Yup, have a point. Very clear and blindingly obvious: religion is not the only organization that promotes decision making that is not evidence-based.

That is all. Gave several specific examples, also very clear. Sorry you missed all that.
 

"You are attempting for reasons I can't determine, to defend religion by trying to equate its real and concrete influence with abstractions."

And you're ignoring, for reasons that are obvious, any example you don't like. (Since when are political parties "abstractions"?) Oh wait, you have other reasons for dismissing those concrete examples you don't like, too. ;)

But here's the real problem with that statement:

I'm not attempting to defend religion at all. I've said so several times.

"I will give you one more chance to debate on substance here, and then I will give up. "

You're giving me one more chance? ROFL

Anyway, I already did discuss lots of substance here. I've talked about why science is not about the seeking of truth. I've discussed in detail what we consider "appropriate scholarship". And finally, I've presented many alternate examples of other ways in which people do not always rely on "rationality" in order to make decisions (and some of the organizations that promote those ways of thinking.)

I wager that you were hoping for some fundie that's easier to knock down with straw man arguments. Sorry I couldn't oblige.
 

You haven't done what you have claimed to do.

You have said you have written about why you personally feel why science isn't about the seeking of truth, but have provided nothing of substance.

You have have said you have provided examples, but so far only you appear to consider them examples of anything relevant to matters discussed.

I am not after fundies to knock down. I am not after anyone to knock down. All I am ever after in discussions anywhere is challenges to important points of debate. The influence of religion on humanity is a serious matter. It is a matter that needs to be discussed honestly and with vigour, not diverted with a series of irrelevances and straw men.

While you joke about "institutions of marriage", cardinals are proclaiming gay men evil, and encouraging the spread of HIV with their irrational ideas regarding contraception. But hey, let's keep on playing word games!

Incidentally, I found ROFLs tiresome years ago, and haven't changed my mind since.
 

Oh well... it was fun while it lasted! Thanks for the conversation and take care! :)
 

Allow me to moderate.

Steve, Alan, y'all are talking past each other.

The EFFECT of the institution of marriage is absoultely the same as the Church of England. The proof here is in the pudding. It's abut as abstract as my buttocks. Because you don't live in this country, Steve, you probably don't get it. Since you don't live in the UK, Alan, brother, and since I don't, it's hard to imagine, 1., a state church, 2., a deeeeep Catholicism, or 3., what has to be near desperation on the part of both in light the ongoing deChristianization of Europe.
 

Cathcing up ..

Re, from Steve: "There aren't many routes to the truth. Not really. The only path that has proved truly useful (and productive beyond our wildest dreams) is scientific rationalism."


Would somebody explain to me how this is not a statement of faith?

I mean, most statements of faith include an object! One believes something BECAUSE OF something.

For example: I believe X because I have seen, or observed, or experienced, or felt, or been convinced of, Y.


This notion of baseless faith .. is that a strawman? I forget my studies of the mechanics of logic. Is that a fallacy? ... Hmmm. It smells of the my personal favorite fallacy at any rate: Argumentum ad Bullshittum.
 

Alan wrote:-
Oh well... it was fun while it lasted! Thanks for the conversation and take care! :)

It was fun reading… thanks Alan, Steve and ER.
 

Hi ER,

Catching up on the catching up…

RE: The only path that has proved truly useful (and productive beyond our wildest dreams) is scientific rationalism."

Would somebody explain to me how this is not a statement of faith?

I’ll give it a shot… it isn’t a position of faith because it can be tested by looking at the evidence.

Has the scientific method been useful in improving our understanding of the universe, and thereby getting closer to the ‘truth’ about how it all fits together?

You could also falsify this statement, let’s compare the scientific method to theology say?

When has theology cured the sick or fed the hungry?

I don't think Steve's statement is one of faith because it is backed up by evidence.

I mean, most statements of faith include an object! One believes something BECAUSE OF something.

For example: I believe X because I have seen, or observed, or experienced, or felt, or been convinced of, Y.

Another example I like to think about when “faith” is mentioned together with the scientific method, is the question “Do I have faith that the Sun will raise tomorrow?” – I say No, I have a belief that the Sun will raise together based on a good understanding of the physics involved in both the formation of the solar system and good old Newtonian mechanics.

I think at least one of us is mixing up faith and belief.

This notion of baseless faith .. is that a strawman? I forget my studies of the mechanics of logic. Is that a fallacy? ... Hmmm. It smells of the my personal favorite fallacy at any rate: Argumentum ad Bullshittum.

If you have evidence for something, do you require faith in it? Don’t think so.

Another topic for another time perhaps…

Lee
 

RE: (Steve?) said) The only path that has proved truly useful (and productive beyond our wildest dreams) is scientific rationalism." (ER said) Would somebody explain to me how this is not a statement of faith? (Lee said) I’ll give it a shot… it isn’t a position of faith because it can be tested by looking at the evidence."

There is nothing scientific about "useful," or "productive" or "dreams" (especially dreams). Useful is in the eye of the judge, although people can agree on a definition; that doesn't make it a free-standing benchmark of "truth" by any means. "Productive," likewise, depends on people agreeing on standards and definitions, not some unassailable "truth." And dreams are ... ha, well dreams, hopes, squishy feelings and such.


RE, "Has the scientific method been useful in improving our understanding of the universe, and thereby getting closer to the ‘truth’ about how it all fits together?"

Yes, to the first part. I doubt the second part -- unless you mean "truth" is a result that occurs when certain people agree.


Re, "You could also falsify this statement, let’s compare the scientific method to theology say? ... When has theology cured the sick or fed the hungry?"

It has not. Nor has the scientific method. However, some people decide to act on certain conclusions of theology, and other people decide to act on certain conclusions of science, to act for the betterment of humankind.


Re, "I don't think Steve's statement is one of faith because it is backed up by evidence."

Backed, perhaps, but not proven, not even in the sense that you mean it. Evidence, by itself, means zilch until someone decides to accept it or act on it.


Re, "I think at least one of us is mixing up faith and belief."

I'd say we both are, to suit our own ends.


Re, "If you have evidence for something, do you require faith in it? Don’t think so."

Then think harder, because you don't have a firm grasp of what "faith" is! You think it's drawn out of the air. It is not. It's drawn from thoughts, and conclusions, experience, and assumptions both firm and weak.


"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," the author of Hebrews asserts.

It's that word "substance" that both of us should think about -- I mean, as an idea and an assertion.

I'm not exactly sure what it does mean. I am fairly certain that the author did not mean anything like "faith is something I pulled out of my arse."

(There. A nod to cultural and lingustic diversity!)
 

There is nothing scientific about "useful," or "productive" or "dreams" (especially dreams). Useful is in the eye of the judge, although people can agree on a definition; that doesn't make it a free-standing benchmark of "truth" by any means.

Falsehoods aren't generally useful. If you want to get rid of a headache, for example, there are an infinite number of unhelpful things you can do to attempt achieve this, such as getting someone to slap you with a fresh haddock. Science, being evidence-based, can yield productive and useful techniques for getting rid of a headache, such as taking aspirin. Religion, being wishful thinking, tends towards the unhelpful solutions, such as praying for your headache to go, or attempting to cast out the headache demons.
 

Hi ER,

There is nothing scientific about "useful," or "productive" or "dreams" (especially dreams). Useful is in the eye of the judge, although people can agree on a definition; that doesn't make it a free-standing benchmark of "truth" by any means. "Productive," likewise, depends on people agreeing on standards and definitions, not some unassailable "truth." And dreams are ... ha, well dreams, hopes, squishy feelings and such.

I agree we need to agree about the definitions of the words here, but since no one on this blog is writing a legal document we can be a little freer with our words and ‘hope’ that reader takes the argument how it was meant can't we?


Is the medicine you could get from your doctor ‘useful’?

Well, if you define ‘useful’ as being getting back to full health, then yes. If you feel your illness was useful in taking a few extra days off work, then the medicine is not useful for this aim.

Let’s not waste too much time on the definition of common words then – I’m sure you knew the ‘spirit’ in what was written. You have not argued against the argument made then, merely the use of words.

RE, "Has the scientific method been useful in improving our understanding of the universe, and thereby getting closer to the ‘truth’ about how it all fits together?"

Yes, to the first part. I doubt the second part -- unless you mean "truth" is a result that occurs when certain people agree.

It’s that word again – “truth” how about the “thing that corresponds to fact or reality”? Any better or am I making it worse?

So I mean getting closer to the “thing that corresponds to fact or reality”.

I hate words and the English language sometimes…

Re, "You could also falsify this statement, let’s compare the scientific method to theology say? ... When has theology cured the sick or fed the hungry?"

It has not. Nor has the scientific method.

The scientific method has been used to make better and more affective medicine and for farmers to yield more and better crops… am I missing something here? Would you think we be better off living 500 years ago before the use of the scientific method?

Re, "I don't think Steve's statement is one of faith because it is backed up by evidence."

Backed, perhaps, but not proven, not even in the sense that you mean it.

Well of course nothing is proven 100% as you know.

Evidence, by itself, means zilch until someone decides to accept it or act on it.

Can you have evidence by itself? Don’t think so – As Alan has been telling me, interpretation is important, this goes for evidence as well.

Have to say, I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Unless I know something I cannot act on it?

Re, "I think at least one of us is mixing up faith and belief."

I'd say we both are, to suit our own ends.

My statement allows for that possibility :)

Re, "If you have evidence for something, do you require faith in it? Don’t think so."

Then think harder, because you don't have a firm grasp of what "faith" is!

You are right there… I don't understand Christian faith

Was it Abraham that was asked by God to sacrifice his son to demonstrate his faith in God?

If Abraham had ‘evidence’ that God would step in and ‘save’ his son before this deed was done, or had evidence that God never lets you sacrifice your son just for Him – do you think it would still be a test of Abraham’s faith? Would God have been so happy about Abraham’s faith in Him?

Not sure what you think about this story – but it makes me wonder about the value of faith over evidence according to the bible writer.

Of course, I’ve no doubt got the story all wrong.

Steve wrote:
there are an infinite number of unhelpful things you can do to attempt achieve this, such as getting someone to slap you with a fresh haddock.

I have the Monty Python sketch in my head now – thanks :)

...or attempting to cast out the headache demons

Jesus was big on demons wasn’t he – well, the bible is anyway. I wonder why?

Lee