Science and Theology, the sequel

02/12/2010 10:10:51 AM · #1076

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Religious claims are truth claims in the same manner that scientific claims - each are claims about the way the world works. You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Thanks for the laugh! I hope you're not seriously comparing LOTR to The Bible. That's funny though!
. . .
The Bible is waaay more complex than LOTR. LOTR was written by one author, in one lifetime. . . . There is no comparison between the two. I find it hysterical that you think there is... It's like comparing a matchbox car to a Ford Taurus.

You - and Jeb - completely (and perhaps deliberately) miss the point, again. You were stating that you had superior theological knowledge, which somehow was suppose to bolster the truth of your underlying claims regarding the veracity of the Bible and/or the existence of your particular flavor of Christian God. I certainly don't dispute that there is a rich, vast and complex theological discipline of which you are likely better versed than I. I also don't dispute that study of this discipline probably provides you with intellectual and even spiritual fulfillment. But I do challenge the idea that the mere fact of the existence of the discipline is somehow proof of the underlying assumptions of the discipline - that is, the Christian God of the Bible exists.

Let me rephrase: "You could have a vast and rich understanding of ancient Greek religions (or) Buddhism (or) Hinduism (or) Islam (or) [insert your preferred mytho/religious worldview here], and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that Zeus (or) Vajrasattva (or) Ganesha (or) Allah (or) [insert your preferred mystical being here] actually exist." In other words, no matter how detailed your knowledge of a fiction is, it is still fiction.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible was written by numerous authors over centuries, with the same overarching theme and fulfilled prophecies (there are 300 specific prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament that were fulfilled, some of which are verifiable by pagan histories).
. . .
Have you considered what would actually need to happen for The Bible to be a conspiracy or human creation? For all those stories and prophecies to be intertwined by chance? For all those authors to have agreement without ever collaborating or meeting each other? The probability of that being able to happen is astronomically small.

It certainly would be remarkable if the stories were all written completely separately from each other. But this is certainly not the case. Later authors wrote with knowledge of prior authors, traditions and mythologies. Works conforming to the main mythological thread were selected and retained, with other works not conforming to the accepted mythology being discarded or edited into conformance. These things were not written in a mythological vacuum. It would be remarkable if there was not agreement. Textual agreement may say something about the coherency of the faith over time - and here your argument is not as strong as you think it is - but it says nothing about the veracity of the claims themselves.

Again, you are starting from the premise that the claims are true and interpreting or rejecting evidence to fit this premise.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You could convince me to believe Macro-Evolution before convincing me that The Bible is a conspiracy.

Am I to assume then that you do accept "micro"-evolution? Essentially you believe that while one might be able to walk 4 miles in a hour, it defies all laws of science and logic for one to walk a thousand miles in a month?

02/12/2010 10:17:02 AM · #1077

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Read your Aristotle. It's a cave, and you are the one who appears unwilling to leave and is satisfied with mere shadows on the wall.

I left the cave for a long time shutterpuppy. I left Christianity and my life fell apart, so I returned to Christ and I'm glad that I did. You might think I'm chasing shadows, but for years I chased after the world, science, my own pleasures, etc... and I was left damaged and in shambles. You might not understand why I decided to go back into the cave (Christianity) but I did and I assure you I'm a better person for it.

Perhaps one of the most unintentionally revealing posts you have ever made.

I am glad for you that you have found something that gives your life meaning and makes you a better person. It is unfortunate that you could only do so within the framework of a demonstrable fantasy.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/12/2010 10:20:31 AM · #1078

yanko, you out there somewhere? I need company. :-)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/12/2010 12:09:54 PM · #1079

I have to send a shout out to my Rant homies and say thanks for keeping my forensic skills sharp. Just got back from appealing my property taxes and it was only through my ability to argue (again, honed here against the rapier wits of my esteemed competition) that I was able to get the value of my house lowered. One of the three board members was highly skeptical of my case and a bit on the grumpy side (I swear his name started with an S...), but the other two were able to carry the day.

:)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/12/2010 12:12:53 PM · #1080

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

PLEASE do not lump me in with this person!!!! I do not, nor have I ever stated that I have any theological knowledge whatsoever.

I have my own beliefs, but they're just that......*MY* beliefs, and they're a very personal thing. I would on no level offer them up as "The One True Way". It simply wouldn't be true.

I have merely been trying to point out for a long time that the stance that the Christians have that the Bible is wholly true and infallible is ludicrous. I have not stated that I have answers, in fact, I have repeatedly stated that I am one man who *knows* he has great limitations in his experiences, education, and exposure........like most of the human race. There is so little in life one can be so emphatic about when it comes to absolute truths, and religion certainly isn't one of them, save for the fact that you can count on fundamentalists and extremists to be immovable in their BELIEF that their flavor is the one and only truth.

02/12/2010 12:13:20 PM · #1081

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Read your Aristotle. It's a cave, and you are the one who appears unwilling to leave and is satisfied with mere shadows on the wall.

I left the cave for a long time shutterpuppy. I left Christianity and my life fell apart, so I returned to Christ and I'm glad that I did. You might think I'm chasing shadows, but for years I chased after the world, science, my own pleasures, etc... and I was left damaged and in shambles. You might not understand why I decided to go back into the cave (Christianity) but I did and I assure you I'm a better person for it.

Perhaps one of the most unintentionally revealing posts you have ever made.

I am glad for you that you have found something that gives your life meaning and makes you a better person. It is unfortunate that you could only do so within the framework of a demonstrable fantasy.

It also seems to me that it's often anecdotally those individuals with a propensity for becoming "damaged" in some way that ultimately flee to the relative safety (and vacuity) of religious faith.

02/12/2010 12:25:43 PM · #1082

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

This is why you (and many people) don't believe in God. The God in The Bible isn't what you want him to be, so you don't want to believe in him. You'll only believe in God if he's exactly what you want. Ever think that God might just be a little more righteous and holy than you are?

Here you also reveal your hubris. By your way of thinking, everyone actually does believe in god, but because of stubbornness, self-interest, or rejection of the difficult life such belief purportedly entails, they merely call themselves non-believers.

This is the kind of faith-arrogance that is so repellent. As ghostlyspoon indicated, there are many reasons why people are atheist, and none of them entail being "actual stubborn Christians". Most Western atheists are born into some kind of faith or other, and lose it over a long, hard road, as long and hard, I would wager, as the one you claim to have had (only more ballsy, since choosing to be in a reviled minority is nobody's pleasure). The path to atheism is difficult and filled with self-searching introspection and often violent internal upheaval. At the risk of waxing poetic, you should understand that the end result -- true intellectual freedom, feelings of harmoniousness with the universe, and even, in many cases, the loss of the fear of death -- is more "glorious" in my opinion than enslavement to proto-historic fairy stories.

Even Jason once asked how I became atheist with the question, "Did you just shake your fist at God one day...?" I had to point out that, as an atheist, the conclusion I came to was that no god existed to shake any fist at. Isn't it obvious? What, exactly, is the problem believers have when non-believers simply do not believe the mythos?

02/12/2010 12:32:34 PM · #1083

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have merely been trying to point out for a long time that the stance that the Christians have that the Bible is wholly true and infallible is ludicrous. I have not stated that I have answers, in fact, I have repeatedly stated that I am one man who *knows* he has great limitations in his experiences, education, and exposure........like most of the human race. There is so little in life one can be so emphatic about when it comes to absolute truths, and religion certainly isn't one of them, save for the fact that you can count on fundamentalists and extremists to be immovable in their BELIEF that their flavor is the one and only truth.

Fair enough. I "lumped you in" because you both were running with my objection in a direction away from the point.

02/12/2010 12:34:03 PM · #1084

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Congrats, Doc. I have done a couple of these for pro bono clients in the past and there seems to always at least one doubter on the panel. Perhaps they draw straws . . . good board member/bad board member.

Message edited by author 2010-02-12 12:37:16.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/12/2010 01:06:55 PM · #1085

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Kinda like good cop, bad copy eh? Love it. Unfortunately, with my looks I never quite managed to assume the role of good cop.

Ray

02/12/2010 02:07:20 PM · #1086

Originally posted by Louis:

Even Jason once asked how I became atheist with the question, "Did you just shake your fist at God one day...?" I had to point out that, as an atheist, the conclusion I came to was that no god existed to shake any fist at. Isn't it obvious? What, exactly, is the problem believers have when non-believers simply do not believe the mythos?

I think the cause for that question was your telling me you were ready to enter seminary. While some people never had a belief it God, it seemed like you crossed a threshold at some point in your life. The question made more sense in that context ("shake your fist" was a euphamism, of course).

02/12/2010 02:50:08 PM · #1087

Good quote:

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/12/2010 03:40:07 PM · #1088

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually, The Bible is MORE verifiable than other historical documents from antiquity. The Bible is more verifiable than Tacitus, Pliny, Thucydides, etc... If you want me show you a photograph of Jesus himself, you're not going to get it, just like you're not going to get a photograph of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc... The verification that you're demanding NikonJeb simply doesn't exist.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? If so, you should at least believe that Jesus was a real person. You don't need to believe that he was the Son of God, but at least tell me that you believe Jesus Christ was a real human being so that I know I'm not just wasting my time with you.

This kind of of rubbish is hard to let lie.

There is no physical or contemporaneous first hand evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is a plethora of evidence - first hand, contemporaneous, physical evidence - for the existence of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc... We even know exactly what they looked like because we have marble busts of all of them, and their likeness was stamped on millions of coins.

I'm not saying that the absence of direct evidence for Jesus is evidence that he did not exist (others do) - but it should remind people that Jesus was small time - one of many people claiming themselves as holy at the time. He is only regarded as being remarkable because his message was one that, from many alternatives, a Roman emperor found convincing. The rest was, as they say, was history.

This urban myth is used to confound the gullible and foolish. Giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you don't mean deliberately to mislead people, it really calls into question your ability to critically analyse information that is being fed to you.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/12/2010 04:03:58 PM · #1089

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually, The Bible is MORE verifiable than other historical documents from antiquity. The Bible is more verifiable than Tacitus, Pliny, Thucydides, etc... If you want me show you a photograph of Jesus himself, you're not going to get it, just like you're not going to get a photograph of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc... The verification that you're demanding NikonJeb simply doesn't exist.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? If so, you should at least believe that Jesus was a real person. You don't need to believe that he was the Son of God, but at least tell me that you believe Jesus Christ was a real human being so that I know I'm not just wasting my time with you.

This kind of of rubbish is hard to let lie.

There is no physical or contemporaneous first hand evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is a plethora of evidence - first hand, contemporaneous, physical evidence - for the existence of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc... We even know exactly what they looked like because we have marble busts of all of them, and their likeness was stamped on millions of coins.

We have busts of apostles such as Paul and Peter. Does this mean they existed? and if they did, is their claim to have known of a person named Jesus first-hand and contemporaneous? I have raised this point before, but no respectble historian doubts the existence of Paul who certainly dealt with the repurcussions of Jesus' ministry (first as an antagonist, then, of course, as a protagonist). Paul speaks of meeting with the Apostles and other early church leaders who had first-hand experiences of Jesus (if we assume Paul never did). I realize you weren't making the claim Jesus didn't exist, but I would push back somewhat at your claim we have no "contemporaneous, first hand evidence" for the existence of Jesus.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/12/2010 04:18:45 PM · #1090

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul speaks of meeting with the Apostles and other early church leaders who had first-hand experiences of Jesus (if we assume Paul never did). I realize you weren't making the claim Jesus didn't exist, but I would push back somewhat at your claim we have no "contemporaneous, first hand evidence" for the existence of Jesus.

That would be "second-hand evidence" aka hearsay ... and I'm guessing those busts of the apostles were not contemporaneously carved from life, with the subjects posing for the artists.

02/12/2010 04:26:09 PM · #1091

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul speaks of meeting with the Apostles and other early church leaders who had first-hand experiences of Jesus (if we assume Paul never did). I realize you weren't making the claim Jesus didn't exist, but I would push back somewhat at your claim we have no "contemporaneous, first hand evidence" for the existence of Jesus.

That would be "second-hand evidence" aka hearsay ... and I'm guessing those busts of the apostles were not contemporaneously carved from life, with the subjects posing for the artists.

Well, I'm guessing the same about the busts Paul. Perhaps I was pointing out the quality of evidence just knowing "busts" exist. Interestingly, however, Paul is very characteristically portrayed (balding, long face) in most of his reproductions.

So the evidence I present is definitely contemporary, but perhaps not first-hand (in Paul's account). Still, it is compelling and I still think quite viable in a push back against Matthew's assertion. (Or perhaps more of a pushback against the "Jesus as myth" crowd (which Matthew astutely did not place himself among).

Message edited by author 2010-02-12 16:27:00.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/12/2010 04:27:02 PM · #1092

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Taking those specific examples, ( //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible )

Peter 1. and Peter 2. are not ascribed by secular scholars to the apostle Peter - so that's not first hand, direct or reliable.

Paul never met Jesus - he involved himself in the early days of the sect and established many of its belief systems. Of the half of the writings actually believed to be his, they are not transcribed first hand written evidence - second hand at best.

My general point remains: the proposition that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Caesar is obviously false to anyone who thinks about it for half a second. By proposing it a person sets themselves up to be accused of dishonesty or gullibility - it is a lose-lose proposition.

As for your proposition that you don't really care who wrote the bible - I find that astonishing. On the one had you champion the accuracy of its transcription, but on the other you disregard as unimportant the fact that it was originally written by a rag tag bunch of largely unknown authors and their followers in the centuries after Jesus existed. The fact that LOTR has been reprinted with near 100% accuracy many millions of times is not persuasive evidence of its accuracy.

Message edited by author 2010-02-12 16:30:35.

02/12/2010 04:42:53 PM · #1093

Originally posted by Matthew:

As for your proposition that you don't really care who wrote the bible - I find that astonishing. On the one had you champion the accuracy of its transcription, but on the other you disregard as unimportant the fact that it was originally written by a rag tag bunch of largely unknown authors and their followers in the centuries after Jesus existed. The fact that LOTR has been reprinted with near 100% accuracy many millions of times is not persuasive evidence of its accuracy.

I'll give you your argument about Caesar and Jesus. My reply was mainly pre-emptive against foolishness that would follow by someone else. ;)

This last bit, however, needs clarification. Why should I care about the authorship unless it contradicts the text itself? As far as "rag tag"...pfft. The central figure of my religion was given a common criminal's death. The apostles themselves were fishermen, or, gasp, tax collectors. Who would I expect to write such things down? I will push against your insertion of the word "centuries" because it implies something I do not hold. Even the latest of the books (ie. John) of the new testament were likely written within a century of Jesus' death and the earliest were likely written only 10-20 years later.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/12/2010 05:09:21 PM · #1094

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why should I care about the authorship unless it contradicts the text itself? As far as "rag tag"...pfft. The central figure of my religion was given a common criminal's death. The apostles themselves were fishermen, or, gasp, tax collectors. Who would I expect to write such things down? I will push against your insertion of the word "centuries" because it implies something I do not hold. Even the latest of the books (ie. John) of the new testament were likely written within a century of Jesus' death and the earliest were likely written only 10-20 years later.

If the author is an unknown author with no direct connection with Jesus or the apostles, or a follower of, say, Paul writing fourth or fifth hand, isn't that troublesome? They were not writing with the purpose of recording a history - they were writing with the purpose of making converts.

We see people making up all kinds of nonsense in this thread in an attempt to persuade random strangers for no personal gain of the validity of their views. Do you really trust the validity of a text written by a fourth or fifth hand author, writing maybe a hundred years after the events in question, with a huge vested interest in making the text persuasive rather than accurate?

02/12/2010 05:26:08 PM · #1095

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why should I care about the authorship unless it contradicts the text itself? As far as "rag tag"...pfft. The central figure of my religion was given a common criminal's death. The apostles themselves were fishermen, or, gasp, tax collectors. Who would I expect to write such things down? I will push against your insertion of the word "centuries" because it implies something I do not hold. Even the latest of the books (ie. John) of the new testament were likely written within a century of Jesus' death and the earliest were likely written only 10-20 years later.

If the author is an unknown author with no direct connection with Jesus or the apostles, or a follower of, say, Paul writing fourth or fifth hand, isn't that troublesome? They were not writing with the purpose of recording a history - they were writing with the purpose of making converts.

We see people making up all kinds of nonsense in this thread in an attempt to persuade random strangers for no personal gain of the validity of their views. Do you really trust the validity of a text written by a fourth or fifth hand author, writing maybe a hundred years after the events in question, with a huge vested interest in making the text persuasive rather than accurate?

What do you mean by fourth or fifth hand? Do you mean that the earliest extant copies we have are likely 4th or 5th generation from the original? I don't have a problem with this because, as we have pointed out, we have a ton of copies. Jacob, the scribe, working in Jerusalem has no idea what Pliny, the scribe, is doing in Macedonia. If they both, as you attest, have their own agenda and are making changes to support it, the texts would have degraded very quickly (ie. become very different), yet we see nothing of the sort. As I posted above, 62% of the verses in the New Testament have zero differences among the seven most complete NT codexes. While that might seem low, it's actually pretty good for starters and the number only goes up if you decide to accept 6 of 7. The vast majority of the other errors are easily identified as errors of copying. Very few of the remaining differences rise to the level of even considering purposeful alteration because they just don't change the meaning of the text. Did you read my link? Skip down to where he talks about Erhlman. It's good stuff.

Message edited by author 2010-02-12 17:28:24.

02/12/2010 05:35:52 PM · #1096

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Did you read my link? Skip down to where he talks about Erhlman. It's good stuff.

Are you talking about the wiki link and the section on interpolations that discuss Erhlman's work?

02/12/2010 05:38:21 PM · #1097

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Even the latest of the books (ie. John) of the new testament were likely written within a century of Jesus' death and the earliest were likely written only 10-20 years later.

No, no, no. The earliest gospel is Mark, and is dated to 70 CE.

02/12/2010 05:54:09 PM · #1098

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Skip down to where he talks about Erhlman.

Ehrman.

This site -- an apologetics site -- only challenges Bart Ehrman on his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" from 1994. It says nothing substantive about Ehrman's latest work, does not satisfactorily reply to "Misquoting Jesus", and ignores "Jesus, Interrupted". It is apologist in nature, and therefore contains no surprises. I am unconvinced that the authors are half the biblical or textual scholars that Mr. Ehrman is.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So? This seems to be a recurring "proof" with you. It means nothing. If copy A is suspect, late in the game, had been lost for decades, or is otherwise not an eye-witness first-hand account, the existence of thousands of copies of copy A are irrelevant in trying to discern the veracity of the basic plot.