Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
Interpretation of anything, particularly religious scripture of any sort (not just biblical) is open-ended.
Ant, I look at this material through the prism of natural science. My view is that good ethics bases its values on facts. Christianity, considered charitably, is ambiguous on this score. Even so-called non-fundamentalist Christians have faith in claims that contradict science. Fundamentalists are not only the young earth creationist wackos, but also include all who believe in miracles. Natural science tells us that miracles do not occur, but rather that nature is universally consistent in its obedience to the laws of physics. The anti-naturalism of Christianity is deeply ingrained, and extends to faith in the general reliability of the New Testament, despite the complete absence of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.
I don't know what you mean by your assertion that interpretation is open ended. This seems to imply that we cannot know the truth. Science has a very different attitude, accepting as closed questions that have been resolved by evidence. Many questions in religion have been answered. The old myth of young earth creationism is just one example of a topic that is not open ended, but has been closed by scientific refutation, except for those who take the unethical ignorant line of ignoring evidence. As science is applied to the Bible, many other assertions, such as the possibility of miracles, now have the same epistemic non-status.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
My view is that good ethics bases its values on facts.
Don't you mean axioms? Humanities faults may destroy this planet, preventing a better sentient species from evolving. Our very existence may be at the expense of a species better equipped to leave Earth, and less likely to wage war on other sentient species.
So if one axiom is that humanity is good, and another axiom is that life is good, all it takes is a simple intuition pump to show that these axioms aren't the same, and could even be at odds. Perhaps life itself is bad, at least in this universe. If deviation from natural course would result in an end to the big bang/big crunch cycle(or whatever the current hypothesis is), then life could potentially destroy all reality, unintentionally. It may be the case that each Big Bang slightly alters the laws of physics. Only in the next universe could life sustainably exist, indefinitely.
These are merely assumptions, but they show that our axioms are merely useful to us, not factual. Only after an axiom is accepted can various facts come together to add or detract value. The axioms come before the facts, and they are not at all certain.
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
My view is that good ethics bases its values on facts.
Don't you mean axioms? Humanities faults may destroy this planet, preventing a better sentient species from evolving. Our very existence may be at the expense of a species better equipped to leave Earth, and less likely to wage war on other sentient species.
Hi Interbane All ethics is based on axioms. Ethics forms a subset of thought, and thought always rests upon assumptions that are not provable but must be considered true in order for consequential ideas to have meaning. For example we have to hold it as axiomatic that the universe exists and the consistent perception is accurate for science to be possible.
My statement was about 'good ethics', asserting as an axiom that good ethics are based on facts. The corollary is that bad ethics are based on falsity.
To illustrate this point, we can consider Ant's statement "most of the scripture you've indicated as backing your claim of anything not "natural" is false, of the devil, should be ignored, etc, speaks of the duality of good vs evil." This statement is a bit hard to understand, and it may be that Ant accidentally stated the opposite of his intention by inserting the word 'not'. Be that as it may, his point is that religion rests on an axiomatic framework of good and evil. My concern about this framework is that many religionists may often think good things are evil and vice versa. For example, in the issue to which Ant responds, Christians claim that it is axiomatically evil to entertain the idea that Jesus Christ was not a historical individual. Here we see an axiomatic way of thinking that is based on fantasy rather than facts.
Quote:
So if one axiom is that humanity is good, and another axiom is that life is good, all it takes is a simple intuition pump to show that these axioms aren't the same, and could even be at odds.
I personally consider it to be axiomatic that human flourishing is good. Exploring the logic if this axiom, we find that human flourishing generally depends on partnership with the rest of nature, as seen in the problem of CO2 emissions allowing short term flourishing at the risk of longer term harm.
Quote:
Perhaps life itself is bad, at least in this universe. If deviation from natural course would result in an end to the big bang/big crunch cycle(or whatever the current hypothesis is), then life could potentially destroy all reality, unintentionally. It may be the case that each Big Bang slightly alters the laws of physics. Only in the next universe could life sustainably exist, indefinitely.
Your statement here is too speculative, extending beyond the real scope of ethics. Ethics is a problem that only makes sense on human time scales and in terms of human values. Bringing larger questions of cosmology into the picture is not relevant.
Quote:
These are merely assumptions, but they show that our axioms are merely useful to us, not factual. Only after an axiom is accepted can various facts come together to add or detract value. The axioms come before the facts, and they are not at all certain.
I did not say our axioms are factual. Axioms are assumptions that reflect values. Statements about what is good and evil are not factual. However, such statements can be congruent or discordant with facts. If I say it is good to eliminate all other species from our planet so we can prosper, my statement is not based on fact, because this scenario is not physically possible. Similarly, if I suggest that it is good to ignore nature because believers will be raptured to heaven in the last days, this is similarly counterfactual and bad. Good ethics have to be based on facts, because where they lack evidence to support them, statements of ethics show a marked tendency to have harmful consequences.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
For example, in the issue to which Ant responds, Christians claim that it is axiomatically evil to entertain the idea that Jesus Christ was not a historical individual. Here we see an axiomatic way of thinking that is based on fantasy rather than facts.
How can you be sure? The indigestible part about axioms is that while they are necessary and useful, they are flawed. By accepting one, you rule out other possibilities since the process is a simplifying heuristic. I'm not saying I don't agree with you. I'm saying that while voicing our beliefs,
Quote:
Your statement here is too speculative, extending beyond the real scope of ethics. Ethics is a problem that only makes sense on human time scales and in terms of human values. Bringing larger questions of cosmology into the picture is not relevant.
Says who? You say a lot of things that seem to be assumed rather than known. I'm sure you can conjure up a reason that ethics should only pertain to human time frames, but you need to show that human time frame will exclude the distant future. You'd also need to show that nothing we do now will harm us in the distant future. I do think ethics applies to such possibilities, but the limitations you impose are merely because we are human and too mentally weak to see outside "human time scales" in order to be concerned with them.
I'd also think that there is some concern in ethics with how we treat other organisms, not only humans.
Quote:
Good ethics have to be based on facts, because where they lack evidence to support them, statements of ethics show a marked tendency to have harmful consequences.
I see what you're saying. What troubled me still remains however. Good ethics must be based not only on facts, but also on good assumptions. I can see there ethical systems with faulty axioms, but still based on facts.
Quote:
For example we have to hold it as axiomatic that the universe exists and the consistent perception is accurate for science to be possible.
I don't hold it as axiomatic that consistent perception is accurate. I think the opposite, and that we need extensive controls to be consistently perceptive, because perception is such a loaded word.
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
For example, in the issue to which Ant responds, Christians claim that it is axiomatically evil to entertain the idea that Jesus Christ was not a historical individual. Here we see an axiomatic way of thinking that is based on fantasy rather than facts.
Uh, what?
There are sources outside of the bible that document, briefly, but nevertheless document Christ's existence.
(1) Josephus, (2)Tacitus, etc.
It is highly likely that Christ existed. These sources independently attest to it and are not biased sources.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
It is highly likely that Christ existed. These sources independently attest to it and are not biased sources.
We've discussed both these sources in great detail. In summary, your confidence is unfounded. Do a search of previous Booktalk posts with the words "josephus" and "tacitus" and "pliny".
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
We've discussed both these sources in great detail. In summary, your confidence is unfounded. Do a search of previous Booktalk posts with the words "josephus" and "tacitus" and "pliny".
In summary, what you are really objecting to here is the particularities of what people of religion choose to believe vs what the scientific community believes.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Ant wrote:
what you are really objecting to here is the particularities of what people of religion choose to believe vs what the scientific community believes.
Ant, the problem is that what religion believes is ridiculous, while what science believes is true. The mockery in the 'top ten things' list is on the money.
If you seriously wish to explore the merits of such threadbare defenses as the claim that the fraudulent references to Jesus by Josephus and the hearsay in Tacitus are some sort of evidence for a historical Jesus, I encourage you to read the short masterly essay by Earl Doherty on the corrupt suppression of the Jesus Myth Theory by the orthodox gaggle at Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
In summary, what you are really objecting to here is the particularities of what people of religion choose to believe vs what the scientific community believes.
I'm objecting to nothing. I've seen the failures of theological reasoning. What it boils down to is faith. A small number of contemporary writings is not enough to believe something is true. It simply isn't, especially when the potential for motive is so extreme. It's not enough to say that something is "highly likely" either. The precedent set by human beings is that human beings tell lies, especially when they are motivated to. Combined with the doubt that is cast on these writings, the uncertainty grows.
All religious reasoning I've seen is faulty. Either invalid or flat out false. It's always the same emotional attachment that leads to endless rationalization. It truly is a delusion. Play this game, see if you like it: post90624.html
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
In summary, what you are really objecting to here is the particularities of what people of religion choose to believe vs what the scientific community believes.
I'm objecting to nothing. I've seen the failures of theological reasoning. What it boils down to is faith. A small number of contemporary writings is not enough to believe something is true. It simply isn't, especially when the potential for motive is so extreme. It's not enough to say that something is "highly likely" either. The precedent set by human beings is that human beings tell lies, especially when they are motivated to. Combined with the doubt that is cast on these writings, the uncertainty grows.
All religious reasoning I've seen is faulty. Either invalid or flat out false. It's always the same emotional attachment that leads to endless rationalization. It truly is a delusion. Play this game, see if you like it: post90624.html
Sorry, but EVERYONE has faith in something because no one has sufficient knowledge.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Interbane wrote:
The indigestible part about axioms is that while they are necessary and useful, they are flawed. By accepting one, you rule out other possibilities since the process is a simplifying heuristic.
That is fine, and we know that axioms are statements that cannot be proved, so have to be taken on faith. My interest here is to explore the axioms that we use for science and for ethics. The classic example of flawed axioms is the assumption from Euclidean geometry that space is Newtonian and is not bent by gravity.
Quote:
You say a lot of things that seem to be assumed rather than known. I'm sure you can conjure up a reason that ethics should only pertain to human time frames, but you need to show that human time frame will exclude the distant future. You'd also need to show that nothing we do now will harm us in the distant future. I do think ethics applies to such possibilities, but the limitations you impose are merely because we are human and too mentally weak to see outside "human time scales" in order to be concerned with them. I'd also think that there is some concern in ethics with how we treat other organisms, not only humans.
Human time scales for ethics should be millennial, not personal. Ethics is about concepts such as love, justice, equality, good and mercy. I don't think you can come up with any ethical concepts that address anything other than human behavior, which includes our attitudes to nature.
I have previously suggested a schematism here to address the concept of eternity in terms of the three subjects studied in Plato's Academy, logic, physics and ethics. As I see it, eternal statements of logic are necessarily true, and outside time, such as analytical statements of mathematics. Eternal statements of physics are permanently true statements about nature, inside time, such as the laws of physics and evolution that apply for the duration of the universe.
When it comes to ethics, eternal truths are ideals of perfect value in human action. Ethics is entirely temporal, and lacks the necessity of logic and physics, but it is still generally accepted that there are durable ideas that are accepted as eternal truths of ethics. For example we can say one eternal truth, ie an axiom, of ethics is that human flourishing is good. From a universal perspective, it can be said that this statement is always relative to human interests, and lacks the universality of statements of logical and physical truth. For the universe, it doesn't matter if humans go extinct. However, it matters absolutely for us, so as humans we should regard ethical axioms as having the same absolute status as eternally true claims of logic and physics. This is a circular argument resting on the claim that we should care absolutely about humanity and its future.
Quote:
Quote:
Good ethics must be based not only on facts, but also on good assumptions. I can see there ethical systems with faulty axioms, but still based on facts.
Yes, I agree, deriving values from facts is never direct, but always rests on assumptions. For example, there are ethical systems such as those of fascism and communism that may be consistent and based on evidence, but the goals are inhuman or impossible, so the ethics become evil. However, if we consider a statement such as 'policy should be based on evidence', this boils down to a claim that what we should do (policy) should be grounded in observation (facts), and should not be based on claims that lack evidence. Values always rest on axioms, such as the assumption that human flourishing is good. If we don't accept that as an axiom, it doesn't matter if we act in ways that diminish flourishing. If we do accept it, then actions that diminish flourishing are evil.
Quote:
I don't hold it as axiomatic that consistent perception is accurate. I think the opposite, and that we need extensive controls to be consistently perceptive, because perception is such a loaded word.
I thought about this some more. A while back, in a discussion with Johnson, I suggested as an axiom that consistent observation is reliable, and this is a formulation I prefer. What it means is that an observation has to be consistent with all other observations (ie the corpus of science) to be reliable. It doesn't mean that if someone asserts they consistently see UFOs that is reliable, but rather that the systematic vision provided by scientific method should be assumed to give reliable access to nature, and that statements that conflict with established core knowledge face an immense burden of proof.
This claim of absolute access to knowledge of nature is controversial against the extreme scepticism sometimes advocated by philosophy of science, but if we take it as axiomatic that the universe exists and we can perceive it, then core scientific knowledge, meaning statements that are abundantly confirmed, constitutes absolute knowledge. I am thinking here of simple claims like Mercury is closer to the Sun than Saturn. It is not conceivable that such statements may be false. To entertain any doubt about such statements is insane.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
Sorry, but EVERYONE has faith in something because no one has sufficient knowledge.
This is true, and we should all be aware of these bandaids of faith. Not only because they are necessary, but because when the first opportunity arises, we should illuminate that area of our knowledge. Not all faith is the same. There is simple faith, such as that in your senses. Then there is a more complex faith, such as believing a proposition with insufficient reason. Your rebuttal doesn't change any of the things I've said.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
What it means is that an observation has to be consistent with all other observations (ie the corpus of science) to be reliable.
Corroborated observation, I agree with this. This is a fundamental component to building a reliable worldview. However, I don't think it's an axiom, in that it's merely an assumption. I think the scaffolding of reason encompasses this point, but it takes some building to get there. I agree with you here now that you've explained yourself, thanks.
Quote:
However, it matters absolutely for us, so as humans we should regard ethical axioms as having the same absolute status as eternally true claims of logic and physics.
It works in context, and I understand. But the context in which you use the concept of absolute isn't an absolute context. There is a contingency. But I can digest it. It's like speaking of the concept of infinity. You could attenuate the concept in a certain range and it would still hold the quality of infinity. For example, even if we exclude speaking of the past at all, we still have the characteristic of infinite time ahead of us. But I think the word "absolute" is a bit more than infinity. Absolute implies everything, without contingency. I'll think on this.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2398 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 608 times in 439 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Top ten things christians don't know about the bible.
Quote:
ant said: sorry, but EVERYONE has faith in something because no one has sufficient knowledge.
Faith is an expectation held without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Confidence is an expectation built on past experience and evidence.
Science doesn't rely on faith. It relies on confidence. That is the whole point of the exercise of science. When we say that something happens under specific circumstances it is not faith which determines our expectations of the outcome. It's confidence.
We know that on earth things that go up must come down because of the huge bounty of experience and evidence which reinforces that expectation.
It may be true that everyone actually does have faith in something, but in the areas where people have faith, they are probably wrong. If there were evidence for the things they believed they wouldn't need faith, they would have confidence.
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
“The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnÂ’t
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
EbrimaÂ’s house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnÂ’t
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
‘Sacred Are the Brave’ a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend TrippersÂ’ is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on TedÂ’s diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
