Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would change your belief?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 1 of 35 (534654)
11-10-2009 5:28 AM


I’m very curious about religious people who dismiss stories such as Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, etc on the basis of scientific evidence, yet still believe in their God. They seem to be able to twist their religious story: Oh, those bits were only ever meant to be allegories.
Yeahright!
So, it makes me wonder: How much more evidence that is contrary to your religious texts would be sufficient to completely undo your belief? Is there a tipping point? Or would you continue to twist and turn indefinitely? Or, indeed, have your texts and various interpretations of those texts actually been evolved to ensure that you have such a complex, self-contradictory and ultimately meaningless premise that there is nothing definable to be disproved?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - This is not a "Creation/Evolution in the News" type topic. It should have been started via the "Proposed New Topics" forum. That said, I will move it to the "Faith and Belief" forum. - Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by iano, posted 11-10-2009 7:14 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 11-10-2009 8:55 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 11-11-2009 4:46 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 17 by rstrats, posted 11-29-2009 8:13 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2009 8:48 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 3 of 35 (534670)
11-10-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by iano
11-10-2009 7:14 AM


Hi iano
1) "Yeah.. right!" is a way of 'arguing from incredulity'. That you can't believe it, somehow lends your argument more weight.
I was expressing my extreme incredulity. Nothing more, nothing less.
2) There is no problem with someone now considering something allegorical that they previously thought literal. So long as the overarching theology holds together then there is nothing to worry about. Scientific theory works that way all the time: modify your hypothesis according to new observations or scrap the hypothesis.
You are right in that there's nothing wrong with someone changing their mind. But, just to take the example of Adam and Eve, I disagree that everything still holds together. The theology of Christians is still that God created mankind. But if you discard the only explanation you have for that creation, how can your theology still "hold together"? Get rid of the Adam and Eve story, and where do you have any explanation for how God created Mankind.
3) You seem to be suggesting that wasn't until Science that people wondered whether a talking snake could be allegorical or not.
I don't know what your definition of "Science" is, or when you though Science started. But I would say that some people would certainly always have wondered whether a talking snake could be real or allegorical based on their observation that no snakes or indeed any other animals apart from humans had ever been observed to talk. I would make that a scientific analysis.
Appreciate your comments though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by iano, posted 11-10-2009 7:14 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2009 9:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 15 by iano, posted 11-11-2009 3:39 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 5 of 35 (534683)
11-10-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Larni
11-10-2009 8:55 AM


Re: Confirmation bias
The thing is that once we reach a conclusion we tend to stop thinking about it any more. Even if we do we tend to stick to our original conlusions as we ignore negative information and attend more to positive information.
This coupled with our ability to hold two contradictory, even mutaully exclusive points in our head (ever loved and hated someone?) allows people to ignore that which does not fit in with our world view and attend to that which does all at once with limited cognitive dissonance.
Interesting point and I'll try and read up on it. Just thinking about it off the top of my head, I think this contradictory thinking must be largely due to instinctive or emotional responses. As such, I wouldn't dispute that I often have instinctive or emotional ideas that are contradictory to my objective attitude. I can't see how you can maintain fundamentally contradictory views though if they are both purely objective. Maybe that's the simple answer: that many religious people will hold onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory scientific evidence (which they also accept) because their religious belief is based on emotion rather than objective analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 11-10-2009 8:55 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 11-10-2009 11:42 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 7 of 35 (534688)
11-10-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
11-10-2009 9:50 AM


Hi Bluejay
On reflection, I shouldn't have said "Yeah...right!" in my OP.
I let my emotions get the better of me!
In fact, I think most of my last paragraph was written in an exasperated state. This wasn't really intended to be a rational/emotional argument; really just a rational one. I should have just kept my question to believers very simple, as follows:
"Is there any scientific evidence that could theoretically emerge that would undo your religious belief."
Consider my wrist duly slapped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2009 9:50 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 11-10-2009 10:27 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 11-11-2009 12:27 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 8 of 35 (534690)
11-10-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by iano
11-10-2009 7:14 AM


Hi Iano
As discussed with Bluejay, I accept I shouldn't have used the phrase "Yeah...right!"
It wasn't clever and undermines my whole position of rationality!
Apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by iano, posted 11-10-2009 7:14 AM iano has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 10 of 35 (534699)
11-10-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Huntard
11-10-2009 10:27 AM


Re: Also, another thing.
Thanks. I didn't even realise I'd done that. I thought all new topics were assessed and put in an appropriate forum.
May I suggest a new forum where we can propose "idiot of the month".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 11-10-2009 10:27 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 14 of 35 (534790)
11-11-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
11-11-2009 12:27 AM


Hi Bluejay
Thank you very much for your considered response.
If it's not going off-topic (I don't want to get into even more trouble!), maybe in your case I could twist the question slightly and ask:
Is there any scientific evidence that might emerge that would make you less indecisive one way or the other about your beliefs? (Maybe that's being too hypothetical, I don't know.) Do you have any hopes for a scientific discovery that would settle your opinion on anything in particular?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 11-11-2009 12:27 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 19 of 35 (537659)
11-30-2009 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jaywill
11-29-2009 8:48 PM


Hi jaywill
Believe it or not, your explanation makes a lot more sense to me than many of pro-Christian or pro-creation posts I read.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me your explanation of "receiving Jesus Christ" is quite a separate thing from literally believing in the creation story of the Bible. That's not to say that you couldn't "receive Jesus Christ" in the way you describe and also believe in the Adam & Eve creation story (many obviously do, you may be one of them).
I suppose to a large extent you answer my question quite well, it's just that I do feel that Christians who dismiss the fantastical stories of the Old Testament in favour of scientific evidence could be braver and more honest and dismiss those stories altogether. To me they seem to hang on to them as a sort of buffer zone to protect the story of Christ from proper analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2009 8:48 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jaywill, posted 11-30-2009 5:05 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 21 of 35 (537825)
12-01-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jaywill
11-30-2009 5:05 PM


Hi jaywill
Thanks for your detailed explanation of your belief/faith, it does help me to understand your position. I still feel, though, that there is this fuzzy grey area where it is difficult for me to grasp whether you consider events in the Old Testament to have actually happened, or if they are just very sophisticated literary metaphors. I've no doubt that there were as many naturally talented writers around 2000-3000 years ago who were quite capable of producing literature that had universal significance to most human beings. If millions of people can all find relevance to their individual lives in a simple pop song, it is not difficult to see how they could also make a complex series of tales fit their lives and their beliefs.
What undisputed and universally accepted science fact do you positively KNOW that should be of concern to me as far as the truthfulness of Genesis is concerned ?
I'm a bit concerned about answering this for a number of reasons. One is that this thread is not about what atheists like myself believe, it is about religious people who have accepted some scientific facts contrary to the Bible's account, but who continue to believe other parts of the Bible. But the Adam & Eve story vs Evolution would be the most obvious example. Now I don't want to start a full debate on that subject under this thread. I would just say that the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution as a fact, which means that we evolved from other species, we weren't made directly from dust and a rib. For me, the scientific evidence is sufficient to say that "I positively know" evolution to be a fact.
Anyway, I mentioned in my OP that many religious people already accepted evolution as a fact and therefore, like me, they regarded Adam and Eve as just a fictional story. I was asking what further evidence that might be contrary to the Bible stories would be sufficient to change their belief. However, I suppose on further thought, there probably is not much room left for science to disprove anything else. It is impossible to imagine how science might either prove or disprove small scale local events that only affected a few individuals, such as the miracles. What evidence could we ever find to prove/disprove that Jesus cured anyone of disease, walked on water, or rose from the dead? In that sense I suppose my question was really a theoretical one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jaywill, posted 11-30-2009 5:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2009 7:53 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 23 of 35 (537862)
12-01-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jaywill
12-01-2009 7:53 AM


Hi jaywill
But you are a bit concerned to provide me with an example give me an example?
I'm not sure if you're asking for an example, or questioning why I gave you an example. Either way, I did give you the example of Adam & Eve v Evolution and you have responded to that.
Now that you have indicated that you don't accept the full Theory of Evolution, can you answer this question which relates directly to my OP (I know it is only hypothetical, this was always intended to be a hypothetical discussion, but I am interested in where you draw the line as to what you can believe):
If further evidence arose for the Theory of Evolution, so much so that it became undeniable to you that humans evolved gradually from other species, and so there couldn't have been a "First Man" and "First Woman", how would that affect your beliefs? Would you then completely dismiss the Adam & Eve story but still believe everything else in the Bible as being real events; would you re-interpret the story to be a metaphorical tale but still believe the rest of the Bible; or would you then think you can no longer have faith in anything in the Bible as being a reporting of real events?
Another hypothetical example might be scientific evidence for life starting on Earth by chance. If that was undeniable, how would that affect your belief?
I suppose what I'm getting at is, what events reported in the Bible are sacrosanct to your belief? I.E. if they were to fall from being considered to be real events, your whole faith would fall with them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2009 7:53 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2009 2:56 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 25 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2009 3:11 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 30 of 35 (537953)
12-02-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jaywill
12-01-2009 2:56 PM


Are you expecting such undeniable evidence falsifying Genesis to be say, just around the corner ?
Not necessarily. Although I do think that if it is possible for life to start by chance events, from naturally occurring chemical processes, it is very likely that we will find out for certain how that could happen. I would be surprised if we don't find that out this century. That's just my layman's hunch (I don't mean to imply I will be contributing personally to the effort!).
Were you disappointed that no evolutionary link between Neanderthal and Human Homo Sapien has turned up? We have DNA spanning about 100,000 years for Neanderthal and about 40 thousand years for Human homo sapien. When I was a kid we thought for sure Neanderthals were the missing link. The genetic evidence I don't believe has confirmed that...What does that do to your faith?
It's not a faith. When I was younger, like you I thought that Homo Sapiens had evolved from Neanderthals. It is now understood that we didn't descend from Neanderthals but shared a common ancestor; the Neanderthals died out and left no descendants. This didn't bother me in the slightest. I find it fascinating that there were various branches in the hominid tree, with different species sometimes living at the same time and encountering each other.
You're talking in a way like "We just know we're going to catch the bible in a lie. Just wait."
It's not a question of proving the Bible or any other religious text wrong. It's a question of finding out what really happened. It's not about finding out the facts from the perspective of the Bible. It doesn't matter whether the evidence that is uncovered agrees or disagrees with events reported in the Bible. It's about finding out the facts, period.
The problem arises when people continue to accept the account of the Bible in the face of overwhelming conflicting evidence from a variety of other sources.
This is what you need to do to change my faith. You have to come up with the body of Jesus Christ in some tomb and undeniably prove that this HAS .... HAS to be the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth...Then, I guess I am going to have to assume that we Christians have been misled.
Thanks. Where's my shovel? Did he have any distinguishing features?
Seriously, I do appreciate your response. It's great when you get straight answers to your questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2009 2:56 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 33 of 35 (537974)
12-02-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
12-02-2009 7:55 AM


Then there was that certain shroud from Turin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 12-02-2009 7:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jaywill, posted 12-02-2009 9:22 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 35 of 35 (538060)
12-03-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jaywill
12-02-2009 9:22 PM


While a science contradiction to the Scipture might cause me some concern I am a little more concern with how much I allowed Jesus to fill my personality conforming me to His image.
I can't argue with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jaywill, posted 12-02-2009 9:22 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024