Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Solar]

I believe the bible cannot be interpreted literally, and I'll tell you why. Here's just one of my favorite examples:

'And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.' Joshua 10:13 (King James Version)

What science tells us in the 21st century that people didn't believe when the book of Joshua was written, is that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The sun never "goes down", the earth just rotates until the sun is on the other side of it. Oh, the sun DOES move, along with the rest of the galaxy, but the effect of the sun "standing still" would be very different from the effect described in this passage.

So, if you want to interpret the bible as God's literal, direct words, there are several possibilities I can think of:

1. God, who created everything that exists, including the sun and the earth, is somehow ignorant of, or has forgotten, the mechanisms of celestial bodies in his universe.

2. God is purposefully trying to deceive the readers of his book, for some unknown purpose.

3. The sun USED to revolve around the earth, but at some point in the Last several thousand years God decided to quietly change the way that the universe works, for some unknown purpose.

Those possibilities do not seem very likely to me. It seems much more likely to me that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, word for word.

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

This is not meant as an attack on your religion as a whole. Just because the bible isn't literal doesn't, in my opinion, necessarily make it completely invalid. I grew up in the christian church, and I used to believe as you do, so I'm not unsympathetic to you position.

Solar

[Solar]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

E. Albright

Thanks for the input, E. I'm pretty starved for complex conversation myself.

The willingness to base one's beliefs on emotions rather than intellect is something in human culture that bugs me to no end. The problem I have with other people's beliefs is not what they believe, but why they believe what they do. I've talked to athiests who say that God doesn't exist because if he did, he wouldn't let babies die, and there would no be so much 'evil' in the world (this is quite a 'logic leap' IMO). Some of them go on to say that if God does exist, he's a sadistic baby killer (another 'logic leap') and they'd spit in his face if they had the chance (to each his own. If I had good reason to believe there was a sadistic, baby-killing god, I'd rather kiss up to him than burn in fiery torment forever and ever and ever. But I digress.)

On the other hand, I’ve talked to christians who say that there must be a God, because there is no morality without a divine being. And they don't have anything to say in the face of mountains of (IMO) good evidence to the contrary.

In both cases they believe because they are uncomfortable with the implications of not believing in it. This isn't just a religious issue, either. I have a friend who says that human cloning is flat out impossible, and never in a million years will we EVER be able to clone a human being. Argue with him long enough and he’ll freely admit that he has no logical basis for his belief, but he believes it nonetheless. I think he’s really just extremely uncomfortable with the concept of human cloning (and it is a rather disturbing prospect).

I’m not saying that emotions are harmful or don’t have a purpose (I gave up on being a vulcan years ago ). I just think that basing beliefs and making decisions based primarily on emotion is very unwise. People are doing themselves a favor if they face their fears and realize that discomfort is not a stable foundation for a belief system (again, as always, IMHO).

Solar

[Krsqk]

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

You seem to have quite the grasp of the doctrine of inspiration, yet you can't reconcile this passage with it? The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset." Can you find anyone who doesn't understand those verses? The Bible doesn't purport to give detailed scientific descriptions of the events contained therein; to fuss over a frame of reference is nitpicking. (Although, several children in our school could use a little more nitpicking lately--yet another outbreak of lice. )

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had.

The theory of evolution is not some magical answer key that can answer anything.

It is an entirely different process. I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for. I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution. This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

[jimbob]

I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for.

Errr... not to speak for all biologists or anything, but has anyone been reading my Posts? To reiterate in brief, the complexity issue doesn't favor chance.

I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution.

Yeah, except the terms "observational gravity" and "theory of gravity" can be linked, whereas "theory of evolution" is not linked to any term "observational evolution".
We can let go of a small object and see it 'drop' towards the large object everyday, and we call the phenomenon gravity - no doubt about our observation (unless you're a deconstructionist )
However, the observed phenomenon for evolution is speciation.
That is to say, we see species everyday. But evolution is a theory attempting to explain where those species came from. Thus we never see evolution. To claim that we see species proves evolution is circular reasoning at its roundest!

This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

I'm still wondering which of the experiments; the primordial soup in an electrified mason jar, or the punctuated equilibrium/salted fossil record is the successful experimentation everyone keeps mentioning.

nighty-night
jimbob

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.

I need to shut up. Really. So this shall be my parting word. Besides, I don't think there's really any reason to continue this line of discussion, as we appear to have hit a semantic brick wall. I think we're using the word "interpretation" differently. I say this for two reasons.

First, you continue to return to phrases such as "face value", which outright eliminates the possibility of textual interpretation as I'm using the word. Yes, words can have a "face value", but it's subjective. Comprehension of text (or any communication) is not a matter of objective comprehension, but of subjective interpretation ("To me word X means concept Y, word A means concept B, word Q means concept R, and thus phrase ABC means concept N", to brutally oversimplify).

Second off, you speak of application v. interpretation. I'm inclined to take this as suggesting that you mean interpretation as "God said XYZ; what does he want us to do?", rather than "God said XYZ; what does he want to communicate by saying XYZ?". This returns us to the fallacy of intentionality; i.e., the notion that one can necessarily extract a communicator's intended "message" from a communication. I have a feeling the root of our problem is actually a touch more esoteric than what has thus far been discussed; I'm wanting to accuse you of subscribing to the existence of universals. If this is the case, our discussion would need to move to a higher level to achieve any meaningful resolution, and I doubt you'd want to go there (not that I'm sure that I, cut off from English-language reference material of the non-Internet-y variety, would want to either, mind you).

Oh, and regarding whether literalists disagree over detail or doctrine, well... I present Exhibit A as a non-mainstream (but certainly not without a following) literal doctrine...

The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset."

...or I suppose that this might be the root of our semantic problem. Literal interpretation means more than just taking something non-allegorically; it means reading the text as the author intended it to be read. Unless you're the author, you can't do so. And if you've got other people writing the text for you, you stand no chance of communicating anything outside of "the perspective of [ those ] who wrote it"... By admitting the preceeding, mind you, you've interposed at least one more layer of subjective interpretation between the reader and the Reavealed Truth. And in any and all fairness, you need to include a layer for the translator(s), too; even if you think one can write something that can be read with an "objective interpretation", I dearly hope that you don't think that objective translation is possible (Douglas Hofstadter's marvelous Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language raises some interesting points in this regard).

Okay, I'm done. Really. Tongue-biting (finger-biting?) shall now commence.

E. Albright

[ Edit: UBB code cleaning ]

[ December 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Krsqk]

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again.

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution. Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

[ December 18, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: Krsqk ]