Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

07/23/2008 03:33:37 PM · #26

Originally posted by Sam94720:

3) Scripture seems to be the only source that is accessible to everyone and could be used as a basis for discussion. But how can we know what God wants when his original words were not preserved and we have hundreds of different versions of the Bible? When stories were added centuries later? When only a fraction of the gospels made it into the eventual book? This is what the video is about. Jesus did not speak English. He probably spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. You see, the Bible your are holding in your hand was translated several times from one language into another (which always affects its meaning to some degree - "traduttore traditore"). And through the centuries, other aspects of the text have been changed. This is simply a fact one should be aware of, especially as a Christian.

My point is you speak in hyperbole. Would you care to list the "hundreds of different versions of the Bible" and perhaps point out a few ways in which the versions cause major differences in doctrine?

I'm well aware which language Jesus spoke. How is translation from Greek to English "several times"? The bible was never written in Aramaic. If you count the verbal translation, then we are up to two. Greek, however, was likely the "english" of the day and used as a common tongue at least among the educated. Translating local languages into Greek was likely something people had lots and lots of experience with.

I understand your questions and I think they are decent ones. My issues is that we hold the Bible to some standard of impossibility. The books that make up the New Testament have more authoritative copies going back closer to the original documents than any other ancient text. If you are questioning the reliability of the texts, are you also questioning the reliability of basically every ancient text out there?

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

07/23/2008 04:12:21 PM · #27

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My point is you speak in hyperbole. Would you care to list the "hundreds of different versions of the Bible" and perhaps point out a few ways in which the versions cause major differences in doctrine?

I'm not a Bible scholar. The prof in the video mentions 5700 different Greek manuscripts found to date. He also gives several examples of changes that have been identified. For example, he explains that the concept of the trinity (which I would consider a central part of the doctrine) is based on one single, controversial sentence (I cannot verify if this is true, but I guess we can trust the expert here. Yes, of course God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned multiple times. The idea that they are all one, however, is stated directly only once - according to the prof). For discrepancies within current versions of the Bible, see for example //www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html . You'll find a long list of direct contradictions there. They are not surprising given how the texts were written and put together. However, they make a claim that the Bible is a perfect, infallible book hard to defend.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm well aware which language Jesus spoke. How is translation from Greek to English "several times"? The bible was never written in Aramaic. If you count the verbal translation, then we are up to two. Greek, however, was likely the "english" of the day and used as a common tongue at least among the educated. Translating local languages into Greek was likely something people had lots and lots of experience with.

As you said, the Bible exists in various languages. Sometimes translated from Greek, sometimes from Latin. Sometimes from one modern languange into another. There's now even a "feminist" German version.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I understand your questions and I think they are decent ones. My issues is that we hold the Bible to some standard of impossibility. The books that make up the New Testament have more authoritative copies going back closer to the original documents than any other ancient text. If you are questioning the reliability of the texts, are you also questioning the reliability of basically every ancient text out there?

The point is that all we have are copies of copies of copies etc. and they do not agree which each other. It is therefore impossible to know with certainty what the original document said (and it is therefore also impossible to tell how close to the original they are). And yes, this problem also applies to all other ancient texts that were copied in this way (if the originals are no longer available).

This is a bit off-topic again, but I'm curious: You seem to have thought about your faith carefully and I assume that you have a ready answer for all popular criticisms. Can you think of anything (an experience, a scientific discovery, an argument) that would make you question your faith? And a bonus question: Have you read the whole Bible cover to cover?

enajj

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/23/2008 05:09:42 PM · #28

The difference between the Bible and probably most other ancient texts is the incentive to make deliberate changes. Of course there are simple mistakes in any handwritten copies of ancient texts, and the vast majority of discrepancies between biblical manuscripts are of this sort as well. But portions of the bible have been intentionally altered by scribes to make the text fit the doctrine of the church better, and this is something that people, especially Christians, should be aware of, if for no other reason than simply to understand the text more fully.

mgsmith53

Pentax K-R

Pentax DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL

07/23/2008 05:32:36 PM · #29

Jessica - I can appreciate your viewpoint, and agree to a very large degree.

As I new Christian I saw many "fundamentalists" demand complete belief, word for word. I read it, then re-read it, again, and again. But not to memorize, but to see what this God is like, to know Jesus and His will, as much as my feeble understanding could grasp from "words". The fundamentalists quote "now we see though a glass darkly, but then face to face" as evidence that now the scripture is perfect, we don't need anything else. How they ever got that I don't know. To me it says that we have this Bible, it tells us lots of things about this God, but it's clouded by human failures and errors. We see darkly. When He is revealed, THEN it will be face to face, and we will know, even as also we are known.

I think we can largely understand who God is by humbling our hearts and minds and reading the wisdom contained, looking for truth. We surely don't need to beat each other over the head with it. I do believe there is doctrine that is taught clearly, over many passages, in old and new testament, and some minor disagreements between this and that don't amount to much. Questionable theology can be built from very few words. Solid understanding can be grasped by trying to see the whole. We see, but through a glass.

I also think picking the Bible apart, looking for error and disagreement, is a pretty lousy way to find out any truth or wisdom. If I interrogated my wife over and over, trying to find all her faults and weaknesses I doubt we'd end up with much of a relationship.

Pretty good stuff if you want to get some gold from it, though. Gotta love it.

slickchik

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

07/23/2008 05:33:02 PM · #30

Originally posted by JessWest:

SNIP...But portions of the bible have been intentionally altered by scribes to make the text fit the doctrine of the church better, and this is something that people, especially Christians, should be aware of, if for no other reason than simply to understand the text more fully.

Where do you get this information?

enajj

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

07/23/2008 06:38:07 PM · #31

Watch the link in the original post.

Originally posted by slickchik:

Originally posted by JessWest:
SNIP...But portions of the bible have been intentionally altered by scribes to make the text fit the doctrine of the church better, and this is something that people, especially Christians, should be aware of, if for no other reason than simply to understand the text more fully.

Where do you get this information?

07/23/2008 11:57:26 PM · #32

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I'm not a Bible scholar. The prof in the video mentions 5700 different Greek manuscripts found to date.

Do not think this is 5700 different versions of the whole bible. This is 5700 copies of various parts of the New Testament. Who cares if a) the copies that are of the same books are the same as each other or b) the variances of each are small enough not to make a big difference? It only increases the reliability when so many different copies are so similar to each other.

Originally posted by sam:

He also gives several examples of changes that have been identified. For example, he explains that the concept of the trinity (which I would consider a central part of the doctrine) is based on one single, controversial sentence (I cannot verify if this is true, but I guess we can trust the expert here. Yes, of course God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned multiple times. The idea that they are all one, however, is stated directly only once - according to the prof).

Here's what I suggest to you. If you really want to know about this, search out more than one speaker. It's fairly apparent from your writing that you don't really have much first hand knowledge, but rather are relying on the interpretation of others. That's a start, but it's not ultimately a very deep understanding. I'm not even sure I understand your point. Your speaker mentions "changes" and you point out the Trinity as one of them but say really it's all just an interpretation of one sentence. Rather than a "change", wouldn't you characterize the doctrine as possibly a "misinterpretation"?

Originally posted by sam:

For discrepancies within current versions of the Bible, see for example //www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html . You'll find a long list of direct contradictions there. They are not surprising given how the texts were written and put together. However, they make a claim that the Bible is a perfect, infallible book hard to defend.

These lists are usually fairly useless. I'm familiar with them. They are usually contradictions due to textual error (and I'm not denying there is variance) which don't amount to anything (Paul giving the # of people at an event as 12,000 when other places record it as 13,000 etc). Some are apparent contradictions that can possibly be explained by understanding context. In the end, I have not seen too much that stands out as being a "deal breaker" on consistency.

Originally posted by Sam:

All modern versions of the Bible are translated from the most reliable and most original texts. There is no game of telephone being played here. The NIV is not translated from the King James. I will once again point out, which you haven't responded to, that I contend the Bible is both more widely available and more accurate now than at any other point in history.

Originally posted by Sam:

This is a bit off-topic again, but I'm curious: You seem to have thought about your faith carefully and I assume that you have a ready answer for all popular criticisms. Can you think of anything (an experience, a scientific discovery, an argument) that would make you question your faith? And a bonus question: Have you read the whole Bible cover to cover?

I do not have ready answers, but I've had so many conversations with so many atheists that the questions become known and familiar. It only strengthens my faith to realize there really isn't any new attack that I need to worry about running across. Ultimately though, under full admission, my belief is faith. It is both the strength and weakness. To the atheist it is nonsense. Belief in the unknowable. Ridiculous. To the faithful, it is an unassailable fortress and will not be brought down. Peace. Solace. Hope.

I have probably read 98% of the bible at some point in time. Some parts I have not read in quite a while. Other parts I have read over and over again. If I had to choose some Desert Island Books of the Bible I think I'd take with me Psalms, Isaiah, Luke and Romans. Those are probably my four favorite books and they cover really all that one needs to know about Christianity. Job and Hebrews are pretty cool too, but I'm trying to limit myself here.

Message edited by author 2008-07-24 00:03:36.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/24/2008 07:42:28 AM · #33

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To the faithful, it is an unassailable fortress and will not be brought down.

I think it's very important that our beliefs (no matter what their nature is) are revised and updated as we are confronted with new information. My current beliefs are not written in stone. If Jesus comes back tomorrow and people start getting raptured into heaven, I'll revise my view of Christianity.

You seem to be different. At some point in time, you put together your beliefs and from then on stopped considering new information. Nothing could ever change your faith. This means it is completely independent of reality and of your experiences. Anything that might question your faith will simply be ignored or disregarded.

Still, at some point in the past you had to consider outside information to build your faith. And you probably didn't carefully consider all faiths on this planet and then chose one and decided that was it. No, you were probably only provided a biased fraction of the available information. Had you grown up in the Middle East, you would probably be a convinced Muslim. This is what usually happens, people are "indoctrinated" early and then defend their fortress. This phenomenon explains why religions are distributed geographically.

About the remaining issues:

I have responded to your claim that the Bible is now closer to the originals than ever. Since we don't know what the originals were, it's impossible to tell how close to them the modern versions are.

And about the contradictions within the Bible: There are many contradictions that can simply not be ignored. Numbers that differ. Sequences of events that differ. Now you can say that it doesn't really matter if trees were created before man or the other way around. And I agree. But if you claim that the Bible is an inerrant, perfect book, then such discrepancies should not exist.

paynekj

Pentax K10D

07/24/2008 09:06:24 AM · #34

And in related news...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

07/24/2008 09:52:41 AM · #35

Sam,

*Changing* your faith, and rejecting/losing/abandoning your faith are two completely separate and independent things.

My "faith," as you have described it has changed. Greatly, even, especially over the past few months as I studied some issues, learned some things, and experienced others. However, my "faith" is still my faith.

My beliefs have changed. My faith has not.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

07/24/2008 10:13:08 AM · #36

karmat, I must admit, I'm confused.

You write:

Originally posted by karmat:

My "faith," as you have described it has changed. Greatly, even, [...]

And in the next paragraph, you say:

Originally posted by karmat:

My beliefs have changed. My faith has not.

These two statements seem to be direct contradictions, right? But maybe there is some deeper sense hiding in there (it's a bit like the Bible...). Please elaborate what you mean, preferably without using the word "faith". Or please explain what "faith" means to you. Thanks a lot.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

07/24/2008 10:27:58 AM · #37

I was simply replying using the word faith because you seemed to be using it, with DrAchoo.

He said

Originally posted by DrAChoo:

It only strengthens my faith to realize there really isn't any new attack that I need to worry about running across. Ultimately though, under full admission, my belief is faith. It is both the strength and weakness. To the atheist it is nonsense. Belief in the unknowable. Ridiculous. To the faithful, it is an unassailable fortress and will not be brought down. Peace. Solace. Hope.

So, I can see how what I said would seem confusing, especially with the phrase that is bolded.

My faith is that unseeable, unprovable "thing" that allows me to trust in Christ and that the Bible is true.

My "beliefs," are the things I feel the Bible has taught me (salvation, eternity, sin, etc).

While my "beliefs" change as I learn and grow, and question, my faith does not waiver. In fact, the more I question and seek out answers about my beliefs and why I believe what I do, the stronger my faith becomes.

As Achoo said, it seems nonsensical, and ridiculous. But, to those that seek it and have it, it truly does bring a source of peace, solace, and hope.

I'm not sure I've made that clear, but I may be able to come back later and try some more.

07/24/2008 10:34:11 AM · #38

Ok,

karmat, I think now I understand.

When it comes to the central tenets of your faith, you're in the same position as

DrAchoo. Nothing could ever change your mind. My post above ("I think it's very important that our beliefs [...]") applies.

When it comes to the details of your faith, you seem to be more open. Still, the question remains: Why did you choose Christianity? And not Islam? Or Hinduism? Probably just because you grew up among Christians.

And other question: Did you watch the video this thread is actually about? (desperately trying to get back to the main issue. ;-) )

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/24/2008 11:17:47 AM · #39

Originally posted by karmat:

My beliefs have changed. My faith has not.

Faith is an unassailable fortress, but physical documents are not. This presentation only deals with the latter. Paper can be dated, translations evaluated, different versions compared, handwriting and syntax analyzed, etc. We have a mindset from our modern experience that a dozen people reading Harry Potter all see the same words, but that does not apply to ancient texts. 2,000 years ago the ability to read and write was a rare skill, perhaps on par with a specialty like electrical engineering today. Add to that the fact that there were no printing presses until after 1400AD, so people with varying degrees of linguistic and literary skill had to literally rewrite the entire text by hand in order to make a copy. Thus, a dozen copies of Mark were unlikely to match even within Mark's lifetime, and copies of those copies introduce additional errors, interpretation and addition for generations before we reach the source material for any modern Bible (and that's not even considering the decades elapsed between Mark's own version and the actual events portrayed, the nuance of translations, or the myriad competing "gospels" that were discarded). Given such circumstances, it requires faith to believe that any phrase written in a modern religious text is a word-for-word quote of an actual conversation that took place thousands of years ago, much less that the entire text is accurate. Note that that is NOT an attack on faith, but an observation of historical circumstance that applies to any text where we don't have the original source material.

You can directly compare the gospels and see for yourself that the stories do not match, sometimes merely in writing style or minor detail but at other times the basic account itself is different in fundamental ways... especially at the most critical events (birth, crucifixion and resurrection). There's little use in arguing that contradictions don't exist- simply take your Bible of choice and write down the details of the resurrection from Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and see if they agree on who said and did what. They don't. You can also compare newer texts to older ones and see that certain phrases or stories do not exist in ANY version prior to a particular date. That is the point of the presentation, by someone who has made such comparisons firsthand with the actual documents: that the Bible includes the errors, personal interpretations and additions of authors in between the original and modern versions. Nothing more.

tootsweet

07/24/2008 12:00:04 PM · #40

I attempted to watch the video, but my computer just couldn't handle the stream.

I was going to stay away from commenting on this, as religion is just one of those things that is so emotional for people.

I greatly appreciate reading these threads, because they force me to think about my beliefs. That being said, I do have to add the following:

I am not a Biblical scholar and the Philosophy class I took regarding these issues was over 15 years ago.

The 4 books of the Gospel; Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are different because they were written for different audiences. The narratives are the same. Luke was an historian, his "version" of the Gospel was written in this vein. Matthew was writing his Gospel to be read and understood by the Pharisees and other learned Jews. His purpose was to prove the awaited for Messiah had indeed come. John's Gospel was written as a diary or a journal, his is very first person, if you dissect and look at verb tenses...his is the most first-hand. Any discrepencies between chronology, numbers and situations are based on what the author was attempting to convey to his audience.

I know this is simplistic and I have no "bones to pick" with any poster to this thread or even the speaker in the video.

07/24/2008 12:01:36 PM · #41

Originally posted by Sam94720:

You seem to be different. At some point in time, you put together your beliefs and from then on stopped considering new information. Nothing could ever change your faith. This means it is completely independent of reality and of your experiences. Anything that might question your faith will simply be ignored or disregarded.

We are actually in the same boat. I spent a long time, and still do, gathering knowledge about my religion. In some ways this was very helpful. I know the depths of my faith (and please understand this is not a claim that I know everything. There are others way further down the road than I am). Ultimately though I was faced with the knowledge that one cannot know everything. Either there is not enough time to know it all or things exist which will never be knowable. Here one must decide to make assumptions on the answers. You have done the very same thing in your own worldview (whatever it may be) whether you realize it or not.

New information could come to light to make me change my view. I'm just becoming less and less concerned that such information exists because I've seen more and more of the "other view" as time has passed.

Message edited by author 2008-07-24 12:01:58.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/24/2008 12:55:41 PM · #42

Originally posted by tootsweet:

The 4 books of the Gospel; Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are different because they were written for different audiences... Any discrepencies between chronology, numbers and situations are based on what the author was attempting to convey to his audience.

Try the exercise I mentioned in the post before yours and see if that still makes sense. For extra credit, compare those to Paul's account. Oh, and try to watch the video if you get the chance on another computer- it's very interesting.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

07/24/2008 01:12:50 PM · #43

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...as far as Mithras and Christianity. The links between the two are pretty weak.

Originally posted by david_c:

Not really. The story of Jesus exhibits signs of syncretism. He also follows Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces monomyth formula, and scores fairly high on Lord Raglan's scale.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm always amazed why people who are normally quite skeptical can embrace a good conspiracy theory. (I actually don't know you at all David, but I thought I'd use the quote to make the observation).

That's OK, Doc, no offense taken.

I'm assuming you're referring to "conspiracy theory" in the modern vernacular, a common apologetic ad hominem when broaching the subject of a mythical Jesus. It's not precisely a "Capricorn One" scenario to suggest that the biblical accounts of Jesus could be based more on myth than history. In this modern age of Communication and Information, it would be difficult to see how David Koresh might elevate his status to that of "Son of God", but surely one would concede that it wasn't a "conspiracy theory" that had ancient cultures offering altar sacrifices to Zeus or Quetzlcoatl. I'm not saying I'm convinced with the Jesus-as-Myth theory, although it is much more plausible than Christian Apologetics would like to admit.

For the record, I, too, am amazed...as to why one would accept St. Paul's "visions" at face value, while utterly disregarding those of Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Mainly, the defense is in the form of a pair of logical fallacies, an appeal to tradition (it's been that way for 2000 years) or authority (the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore, it's true). Where should the skeptic be expected to draw the line?

07/24/2008 01:43:44 PM · #44

Originally posted by david_c:

For the record, I, too, am amazed...as to why one would accept St. Paul's "visions" at face value, while utterly disregarding those of Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Mainly, the defense is in the form of a pair of logical fallacies, an appeal to tradition (it's been that way for 2000 years) or authority (the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore, it's true). Where should the skeptic be expected to draw the line?

You should go look at that long thread in Rant I mentioned. I went on at great lengths how I feel that the hardline "Jesus was not a historical figure" is among the least likely alternate explanations for the New Testament. That there was a person called Jesus and that at some point quickly after his death people claimed he had been resurrected, I think, is about as solid as any historical fact we have from that time period.

07/24/2008 02:04:27 PM · #45

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I have responded to your claim that the Bible is now closer to the originals than ever. Since we don't know what the originals were, it's impossible to tell how close to them the modern versions are.

If you want a different point of view than your source above, check out this paper. Admittedly it is presented on a Christian website, BUT it is cited and sourced. As an example for the reliability of the text of the new testament, we can see below the % of words in each book that have complete agreement among the seven major greek editions of the NT.

(% of words in agreement/ avg # of variances per page)
Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
Mark 45.1 / 10.3
Luke 57.2 / 6.9
John 51.8 / 8.5
Acts 67.3 / 4.2
Romans 75.5 / 2.9
1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
Titus 71.7 / 2.3
Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
James 61.6 / 5.6
1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
1 John 72.4 / 2.8
2 John 61.5 / 4.5
3 John 73.3 / 3.2
Jude 72.0 / 4.2
Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.

Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's a well-presented counter to your own link.

Message edited by author 2008-07-24 14:05:07.

07/24/2008 02:08:10 PM · #46

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Either there is not enough time to know it all or things exist which will never be knowable. Here one must decide to make assumptions on the answers. You have done the very same thing in your own worldview (whatever it may be) whether you realize it or not.

I agree there are many things we don't know. I can live with that and admit the uncertainty. People have come up with various explanations for our origins, for example (It might have been mud spread on the back of a big turtle. Or two loons which dove to the bottom of primeval waters. Or it might have been a raven. Or a god who created the earth in seven days.).

Am I supposed to choose one of these stories now? How am I supposed to make my choice? They are all about equal in terms of credibility. At most one can be correct, but they might all be wrong.

The only reasonable thing to do is to accept the uncertainty and to try and maybe reduce it a bit by obtaining knowledge through science. This has worked out pretty well so far, has multiplied our lifespans, provided us with food and shelter, brought us planes, cars, fridges, telephones, computers, the Internet, digital cameras, etc. And it also answered some of the old questions. We now know that the earth is not flat. We know we are not at the center of our galaxy. We know the earth is not fix, but moves. We know how the different species we have on this planet developed. We figured out that the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle is not 3. Why would one stick to the old assumptions that turned out to be wrong instead of accepting the newly acquired knowledge?

I don't think my world view contains any unfounded assumptions. And I don't think one is forced to choose some irrational assumptions just to fill the gaps. And making an assumption like "I assume that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."* is quite a leap...

Let me ask this question again (to try and come back to the original topic): Did you watch the video?

* not my own text, but something I found on teh Internets and found fitting.

07/24/2008 02:26:23 PM · #47

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I don't think my world view contains any unfounded assumptions.

That is patently false unless you simply define "unfounded" as "that which I personally think is unreasonable" in which case the statement could be asserted by anybody on the globe (except the crazy people). You have many assumptions which may fall one or more of these categories:

A) You know some information to make an assumption and assume the rest to be reliable because you know of experts who hold it to be reliable. (eg. string theory, the Big Bang)
B) You have no personal information that goes against an assumption.
C) You utilize your worldview to exclude options to problems which do not fit (ie. dualism, etc)

There are probably more categories, but you must simply agree that none of us has all the information available out there. There are also questions that will be answered only at a time in history after we die (and thus the answer, in our lifetime, is unknowable). There are finally questions which cannot practically ever be answered (perhaps knowing details of a point in the universe that is many millions of light years away).

The theist has the advantage simply because he or she is more comfortable with the idea of "unknowability". The atheist (or perhaps more appropriately, the materialist) is uncomfortable with the idea that science cannot answer everything.

Message edited by author 2008-07-24 14:28:23.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

07/24/2008 02:36:56 PM · #48

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The theist has the advantage simply because he or she is more comfortable with the idea of "unknowability". The atheist (or perhaps more appropriately, the materialist) is uncomfortable with the idea that science cannot answer everything.

Interesting. I'm assuming this is your own assertion because I'm not sure why nontheists would be more uncomfortable with the idea science can't answer everything. Going back to Sam's post, at one time the earth was perceived to be flat. Eventually someone (or two) figured out this wasn't the case. I'm sure a great many nontheists at that time were perfectly happy with the flat earth thing, then moved on to the round earth thing, and never really felt "uncomfortable" that maybe the roundness of the earth would never be proven to their satisfaction. I'd wager that the average person, whether theist or non, finds joy in the stars at night, occasionally ponders their existence, then worries a bit more about who needs what to be ready for school/work in the morning. Even nontheists may at times simply enjoy the wonders and beauty of the world without having to ask "why is the sky blue?"

For my own clarification, why the parenthetical materialist? Is it a subset of atheism?

07/24/2008 02:44:12 PM · #49

I still think I don't make any unfounded assumptions in my world view. Maybe you can give me an example of what you would consider an assumption on a similar level as the "cosmic Jewish zombie" one.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"Unknowability"? Doesn't sound like a theist. A theist claims to know exactly things we simply cannot know. Any claim about characterists of God falls into that category.

And of course science will never be able to answer everything. I can live with that. I still don't see any good reason to accept answers that are apparently not much more than guesses.

What is the "advantage" you are talking about? Advantage in terms of what?

Read the text you linked to and considered the statistics. Let me try to illustrate the point with an analogy (Christians love analogies!):

Someone writes a text: "Peter had a dog." Someone then copies it, but makes a mistake and writes "Peter had a frog.". Someone reads this and thinks "Peter was rich, he must have had more than one frog!", so he changes it to "Peter had many frogs." in his copy. If this copy is now copied a hundred times and some of these copies say "Peter had many frogs." while others say "Peter had a lot of frogs.", you could say that they all agree 100% in terms of content. Still, they are different from the original sentence about the dog, which is no longer accessible. That's the basic phenomenon.

P.S.: May I asked you whether you watched the video?