Skeptic and the Book of Jonah

stahrwe · Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:30 pm

In another discussion the following post appears:


	UPENN-skeptic wrote: Speaking of smelliness... Poor Jonah... "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Genesis

Now, I suppose that the mistake might be deliberate since Interbane seems to think I won't be able to resist intruding into the little thread in question, and if so, well, so be it. On the other hand, I suspect that it is an honest error, or maybe the reference to Genesis was just a random event, but if it wasn't the reference reflects the lack of Biblical knowledge I have been pointing out since I joined BookTalk.org.

Specifically, Jonah does not appear in Genesis. It has its own Book of the Bible named, Jonah. Further, the quotation about Jonah being three days and three nights ... is also not from Genesis, it is from Matthew Chapter 12.

as for the other comment:


	UPENN-skeptic wrote: Indeed, no religion is perfectly consistent, or even mildly at that (and I would challenge anyone to disprove this contention) when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by consistent. In point of fact, Christianity is buit on paradoxes:

To gain one's life one must first lose it.
He who is first, will be last, etc.


	Quote: The Paradoxes of Christianity By G. K. Chesterton The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong. It is this silent swerving from accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny element in everything. It seems a sort of secret treason in the universe. An apple or an orange is round enough to get itself called round, and yet is not round after all. The earth itself is shaped like an orange in order to lure some simple astronomer into calling it a globe. A blade of grass is called after the blade of a sword, because it comes to a point; but it doesn't. Everywhere in things there is this element of the quiet and incalculable. It escapes the rationalists, but it never escapes till the last moment. From the grand curve of our earth it could easily be inferred that every inch of it was thus curved. It would seem rational that as a man has a brain on both sides, he should have a heart on both sides. Yet scientific men are still organizing expeditions to find the North Pole, because they are so fond of flat country. Scientific men are also still organizing expeditions to find a man's heart; and when they try to find it, they generally get on the wrong side of him. Now, actual insight or inspiration is best tested by whether it guesses these hidden malformations or surprises. If our mathematician from the moon saw the two arms and the two ears, he might deduce the two shoulder-blades and the two halves of the brain. But if he guessed that the man's heart was in the right place, then I should call him something more than a mathematician. Now, this is exactly the claim which I have since come to propound for Christianity. Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth. It not only goes right about things, but it goes wrong (if one may say so) exactly where the things go wrong. Its plan suits the secret irregularities, and expects the unexpected. It is simple about the simple truth; but it is stubborn about the subtle truth. It will admit that a man has two hands, it will not admit (though all the Modernists wail to it) the obvious deduction that he has two hearts. It is my only purpose in this chapter to point this out; to show that whenever we feel there is something odd in Christian theology, we shall generally find that there is something odd in the truth. continued We have hundreds more books for your enjoyment. Read them all! http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_ ... ty_p1.html

To further what GK is saying, how would something perfectly consistent be perceived in an inconsistent world?

You may now carry on.

LPOBryan · Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:03 pm

There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in. (L Cohen)

What the butterfly thinks about it all we do not know, yet, and until that day we can only guess at where the crack comes from and pray that through it we see the light.

What the light is we do not know. For who are we to know Its mind, when we still do not know what light is, what gravity is, what electricity is, what love is?

Dawn · Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:20 am

Thus the need for revelation--both general (in the creation of the world) and specific (in the coming of Jesus and in the Bible, also known as The Word of God. )
The light came into the world and the world did not comprehend it but....


	Quote: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Jhn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Interbane · Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:52 am


	Stahrwe wrote: Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth.

In sum, when the bible is logical it is correct. When it is illogical it is also correct. The bible is not falsifiable, therefore perfectly true regardless of the evidence.

The corresponding analogy isn't whether or not someone is correct in guessing where the heart is. It's the set of rules they use to arrive at the answer. Symmetry would obviously not apply. Logic would still apply. Using the analogy to show that logic would not apply to the bible is simply bad reasoning. Perhaps logic wouldn't apply to the bible, but Chesterton's reasoning doesn't show this. His thinking isn't any different, though he is a little better at couching his rationalizations in reasonable sounding paragraphs.

stahrwe · Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:20 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Stahrwe wrote: Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth.

In sum, when the bible is logical it is correct. When it is illogical it is also correct. The bible is not falsifiable, therefore perfectly true regardless of the evidence.

The corresponding analogy isn't whether or not someone is correct in guessing where the heart is. It's the set of rules they use to arrive at the answer. Symmetry would obviously not apply. Logic would still apply. Using the analogy to show that logic would not apply to the bible is simply bad reasoning. Perhaps logic wouldn't apply to the bible, but Chesterton's reasoning doesn't show this. His thinking isn't any different, though he is a little better at couching his rationalizations in reasonable sounding paragraphs.

Ah, the iconic Rationalization accusation. When that shows up one knows that intellect has failed. I submit that something can be very much correct, even though it is illogical. Under a set of assumptions that maximize my comfort it is illogical to give up my seat to another person but such an action may be perceived as being correct (the person is a pregnant woman), incorrect (I give it to a gang member instead of the pregnant woman though in this case I may have a self preservation motive) or neither correct nor incorrect (firgure this case out on your own). Logically it makes no sense for Jesus to die for my sins. On what logical basis does God pay the penalty I owe? and yet it is correct that He did so.

As for logic being the end all/be all, I suspect that we owe that to Mr. Spock in the original ST series but I point out that Spock suffered side effects of living logically and often failed to do so human side or no. Strick logic not only doesn't work, but as Godel showed, can't work.

As for Interbane challenging Chesterton on any level, you are not up to it. No insult intended, few if any humans would be.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:24 pm

Stahrwe:


	Quote: reflects the lack of Biblical knowledge I have been pointing out since I joined BookTalk.org.

I can hear your frustration, Stahrwe. But I don't know if it is just annoyance that we are unfamiliar with the text of the Bible or if you are frustrated that we are passing up a chance to believe as you do, by a thorough knowledge of the Bible.

You must realize that we are (at least I) not really interested in learning the Bible. It would be nice from an intellectual point of view to have book, chapter and verse at our fingertips but kind of pointless for any life purpose. Certainly many passages of the Bible are very beautiful. I would love to see a condensed version that includes just those. Hey, does such a thing exist?

stahrwe · Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:58 pm

lady of shallot wrote:

Stahrwe:


	Quote: reflects the lack of Biblical knowledge I have been pointing out since I joined BookTalk.org.

I can hear your frustration, Stahrwe. But I don't know if it is just annoyance that we are unfamiliar with the text of the Bible or if you are frustrated that we are passing up a chance to believe as you do, by a thorough knowledge of the Bible.

You must realize that we are (at least I) not really interested in learning the Bible. It would be nice from an intellectual point of view to have book, chapter and verse at our fingertips but kind of pointless for any life purpose. Certainly many passages of the Bible are very beautiful. I would love to see a condensed version that includes just those. Hey, does such a thing exist?

There are many collections that contain a few verses arranged by subject matter. The verses are ones which have been a source of strength and comfort to beleivers to thousands of years though I don't know why an unbeliever would be interested in such a collection.

As far as my interest in discussing the Bible in a comprehensive, systematic way, for BT purposes it is not primarily with the goal of conversion but education. There are so many misconceptions about the Bible and down right wrong information that it is frustrating having to correct that before the discussion can proceed. I would think that would be a concern to you as well so that when you read something like TEoG, you can see the blatant errors and not be embarrassed defending something that gets ripped apart by an honest discussion. When I participate in the evolution discussions the first thing I get hit with is, "Read this book, or that book, yet when I suggest a study of the Bible I get, 'sorry don't need to' or 'not interested' yet the same people continue to criticize the Bible. Doesn't it make sense to at least read what you are criticising?

Interbane · Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:11 pm


	Quote: As for Interbane challenging Chesterton on any level, you are not up to it. No insult intended, few if any humans would be.

Here is the crux of your problem, your reliance on authority. Many great men are often very wrong.


	Quote: Under a set of assumptions that maximize my comfort it is illogical to give up my seat to another person but such an action may be perceived as being correct (the person is a pregnant woman), incorrect (I give it to a gang member instead of the pregnant woman though in this case I may have a self preservation motive) or neither correct nor incorrect (firgure this case out on your own).

Can you formulate a logical argument why giving up your seat to a woman would be illogical? I'm sure your premise would be found faulty. If your premise is that you should maximize your own comfort at any cost, then you should not give up your seat. Your premise would be morally bankrupt, but that does not equate to a break in logic. You would be logical and immoral. The morally correct premise is to increase the well-being of all persons as much as reasonably achievable. With a morally correct ethical standard, it is logical to give up your seat, and at the same time that act would be morally correct. The distinction in your analogy isn't logical/illogical, it is moral/immoral, and it entirely depends on the premise.

Logic is not the end-all be-all. But it is an effective set of parameters for thinking. Your continual attempt to be immune to logic is telling. Yes, there are places where logic doesn't apply. But this is not one of those places. If you are claiming this is one of those places, then you should be able to show, with precision, where and why logic does not apply.

Something tells me you're unable to show that. Chesterton wasn't able to. Logic applies to your arguments Stahrwe, which means that in many cases you are truly wrong. When you commit a fallacy, your reasoning is bad. It is not logic that is faulty, it is your reasoning. There are places where logic doesn't apply, but this isn't one of those places.

stahrwe · Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:42 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: As for Interbane challenging Chesterton on any level, you are not up to it. No insult intended, few if any humans would be.

Here is the crux of your problem, your reliance on authority. Many great men are often very wrong.

Like Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Hitchens, ...?


	Quote: Under a set of assumptions that maximize my comfort it is illogical to give up my seat to another person but such an action may be perceived as being correct (the person is a pregnant woman), incorrect (I give it to a gang member instead of the pregnant woman though in this case I may have a self preservation motive) or neither correct nor incorrect (firgure this case out on your own).


	interbane wrote: Can you formulate a logical argument why giving up your seat to a woman would be illogical? I'm sure your premise would be found faulty. If your premise is that you should maximize your own comfort at any cost, then you should not give up your seat. Your premise would be morally bankrupt, but that does not equate to a break in logic. You would be logical and immoral. The morally correct premise is to increase the well-being of all persons as much as reasonably achievable. With a morally correct ethical standard, it is logical to give up your seat, and at the same time that act would be morally correct. The distinction in your analogy isn't logical/illogical, it is moral/immoral, and it entirely depends on the premise.

Do you really have trouble understanding this? It was precisely my point that logic and right may oppose each other. In an earlier post you said: "In sum, when the bible is logical it is correct. When it is illogical it is also correct. The bible is not falsifiable, therefore perfectly true regardless of the evidence."

The implication here is that the Bible is being given a pass but it isn't. Logic and 'right' often have nothing to do with each other so why do you keep trying to associate them? What I did was show the flaw in your logic.


	Interbane wrote: Logic is not the end-all be-all. But it is an effective set of parameters for thinking. Your continual attempt to be immune to logic is telling. Yes, there are places where logic doesn't apply. But this is not one of those places. If you are claiming this is one of those places, then you should be able to show, with precision, where and why logic does not apply.

I don't think I have said that logic doesn't apply (are you making things up again?). What I have said is that logic is a much more limited and flawed tool than you think it is. It has inherent flaws and is rarely a reliable predicter of or guide to behavior. Your claim to rely on it is a smoke screen to protect you from dealing with conflicts in your philosphy.


	interbane wrote: Something tells me you're unable to show that. Chesterton wasn't able to. Logic applies to your arguments Stahrwe, which means that in many cases you are truly wrong. When you commit a fallacy, your reasoning is bad. It is not logic that is faulty, it is your reasoning. There are places where logic doesn't apply, but this isn't one of those places.

That 'something' is wishful thinking on your part. How did Chesterton fail? I submit that in many cases your claims of fallacies are inappropriate and based solely on your assumptions. As for evidence, you don't even know what it is. What kinds of evidence are useful:

Circumstantial
Physical
Eyewitness Testimony
Direct evidence
Corroborating evidence.
more...

Our previous discussions have indicated that you don't understand these, or at least deny a specific principle associated with the relationship of the above to each other.

Vishnu · Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:02 pm

Yeah, this reminds me of one time when I heard David Icke talking about sound vibrations giving form to the universe or something like that, and he said even the spoken word can effect reality, even, he said(I shit you not) "going back to the OLD testament - 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was... SOUND!' ". Yep, that's what he said. Double fail there.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:58 pm

Stahrwe:


	Quote: I would think that would be a concern to you as well so that when you read something like TEoG, you can see the blatant errors and not be embarrassed defending something that gets ripped apart by an honest discussion. When I participate in the evolution discussions the first thing I get hit with is, "Read this book, or that book, yet when I suggest a study of the Bible I get, 'sorry don't need to' or 'not interested' yet the same people continue to criticize the Bible. Doesn't it make sense to at least read what you are criticising?

To the best of my knowledge I have not discussed TEoG, since I don't know what that means. Also I do not criticize the Bible. I mean I don't believe what it says if that is what you call criticizing. Maybe you mean one can not critique Genesis if they have not read all the way through to revelations.

(actually just typing those two words bores me, sorry!)

Robert Tulip · Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:25 pm


	stahrwe wrote: Logic and 'right' often have nothing to do with each other so why do you keep trying to associate them?

Anyone who cannot see the connection between logic and correctness has serious flaws in their reasoning.

Correct statements are all logically compatible with each other. Incorrect statements are not logically compatible except by rationalisation, meaning the ability to ignore contrary evidence.

The Bible is full of incorrect statements. Fundamentalist Christians seek to rationalise these failures of logic by asserting that logic does not matter. It is called 'papering over the abyss'. This is why Christianity is on the brink of radical transformation or collapse.

Logical incoherence, the belief in mutually incompatible propositions, becomes far easier if you cultivate the evangelical talent of double-think, what George Orwell called the ability to say black is white, with sincerity and fervor. Stahrwe seems to have mastered this old skill to a high degree. A bonus is the added ability to forget and deny things that were previously said.

Chesterton was a fool. He took a set of false premises about Christian faith and applied a cultivated patronising ability to rationalise them, to give the impression of coherence where none existed.

Interbane · Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:32 pm


	Quote: The implication here is that the Bible is being given a pass but it isn't.

Then you are admitting there are contradictions in the bible. Without a pass, there is no excuse for the contradictory parts. You've given the bible a free pass before, by inventing plot points to solve contradictions. Remember "something happening" in Genesis? That is a free pass, to avoid a contradiction. It is a rationalization.

You're trying to make the point that logic doesn't apply to the bible, then turning around and saying the bible doesn't get a free pass. Which is it?

stahrwe · Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:48 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: The implication here is that the Bible is being given a pass but it isn't.

Then you are admitting there are contradictions in the bible. Without a pass, there is no excuse for the contradictory parts. You've given the bible a free pass before, by inventing plot points to solve contradictions. Remember "something happening" in Genesis? That is a free pass, to avoid a contradiction. It is a rationalization.

You're trying to make the point that logic doesn't apply to the bible, then turning around and saying the bible doesn't get a free pass. Which is it?

By your standard any explanation is a 'free pass'. The 'something happened' in Genesis is not more indictable for Christians than for sciencetist who say, "something happened in the beginning." In the Bible case, there is no contradiction but for science there is.

As for the whole subject of 'contradiction' in the Bible, they tend more to be framed as paradoxes; he who shall be last shall be first, to gain one's life he must first lose it, etc.

There are many of these which would have been covered had we done a Bible discussion.

Robert Tulip · Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:47 am


	stahrwe wrote: By your standard any explanation is a 'free pass'.

There is a slight difference between 'any explanation' and complete denial of the relevance of logic to study of the Bible.

Stahrwe's statement "why do you keep trying to associate logic and right" is more than a free pass, if it made any sense it would get his team to win without showing up, maybe it would get him into a whole Major League season in a luxury box suite for free, hey, they would even pay him to go so he could miraculously cause pitchers to throw balls.


	Quote: As for the whole subject of 'contradiction' in the Bible, they tend more to be framed as paradoxes; he who shall be last shall be first, to gain one's life he must first lose it, etc.

Oh I see, we can leap from 'the poor are the most important' and 'live to serve others' to 'evolution is false'. Not so much God of the gaps as God of the yawning logical gulf of irrational sophistry.

Forum rules

Skeptic and the Book of Jonah Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!