Summations Only

Hi foreveryoung, I would suggest that this is a relatively poor way to approach any belief about the properties of the universe. After all, you have faith in the Christian god, but others have just as much faith in the pantheon of Hindu gods, just to name one example. You can't both be right. Clearly, whoever is right on that issue, there are millions whose faith led them to the wrong conclusion. But that's the whole point; science does not require faith. In point of fact, the scientific method exists for the very purpose of eliminating the need to take matters on faith.I would not ask you to take anything on faith. Taking an evolutionary example, I would not ask you to believe that we share common ancestry with apes merely on faith. I don't need to. There exists evidence that can empirically demonstrate that common ancestry to an extremely high degree of confidence. Fair enough. None of us can become experts on every single scientific issue. There must come a point where we are willing to trust that professional scientists know what they are talking about. You can call that "taking it on faith" if you like, but the difference is that for any scientific consensus there will exist supporting evidence, much of which will be available for you to peruse.One cannot exhaustively investigate the evidence behind every scientific claim, but neither must one take any individual claim purely upon faith. The problem with this, from a science point of view is that scientists do have evidence for their beliefs. If you don't have counter-evidence, then you are effectively trumped. This is a debate format board. that means that the person who can provide evidence for their position is always going to win out over the person who does not. The same applies in the realm of real science; evidence is king. No evidence, no dice.Thinking out loud, philosophising, having an opinion, all these are fine in every day life, but science holds itself to higher standards, or at least, more specific standards. If you want to take on the scientific consensus, then you have to do so on its own terms. That means empirical data, not opinion. Your opinion, my opinion, anyone's opinion; all are worthless in the scientific arena. Only evidence counts. I really don't think that your apparent distrust of the scientific community is justified. As Percy notes above, atheism is not the driving force behind science. I can assure you that there is no anti-religious conspiracy taking place. If scientists were allowing their alleged anti-religious fervour mislead them, they would not be able to support their views with evidence.I suggest that if you find this approach difficult at first, then you should start small. Look at one issue at a time and research that narrow issue as thoroughly as you can. This is exactly how real scientists work. No-one can comprehend a whole subject (like botany, geology or evolutionary biology) at once, they're just too vast. The sensible method is to cut these subjects up into tiny little sub-topics thus making them more amenable to study. Once you've got a handle on a few of these more narrow issues, you can try to combine them into a cohesive wider framework. There are plenty of people here on this board who will be glad to introduce you to these topics, many of which are truly fascinating. Once you are more comfortable with this approach, you will be better equipped to get a grasp on the big picture.What won't wash however, is for you to come into a discussion without doing a shred of research, not knowing what you're talking about whilst loudly proclaiming known falsehoods as if they were holy writ. That will get you short shrift and, frankly, deservedly so.Mutate and Survive

Hi NWR,I think perhaps you have misunderstood me.Science exists so that when you feel that burning curiosity, you can get a better answer than simply taking my word for it. You don't have to take my answer or anyone else's answer on faith.I agree that only science can answer questions about the universe and its properties.Mutate and Survive

But we're not talking about metaphysical naturalists you strange person. We are talking about scientists. Scientists are not required to be metaphysical naturalists. Most are not metaphysical naturalists, as ought to be perfectly obvious given that most of them are religious. That's kind of a big clue.Science requires methodological naturalism, which is a rather different thing. Your objection is completely irrelevant and only serves to underline your lack of understanding of the scientific method. ...?Were you planning to finish that sentence?As I said above, there are many religious scientists. Under your insipid straw-man characterisation of science, those people must regard themselves as incompetent.Also, why on Earth did you respond twice to the same message? It's unnecessary and it prematurely bumps up the message count for the thread. If you think of something else to say, just edit the original message.Anyway, you make no worthwhile point in message 65, only attempt a Gish Gallop. I'm not playing. Take your silly tricks elsewhere please. We have evidence of natural causes. We have no evidence of magic, nor would science be able to deal with magic if we did. End of story.Mutate and Survive

And as I have already explained to you, this is by the by, since we were talking about scientists, not metaphysical naturalists or Richard frigging Dawkins. I was trying to talk to foreveryoung about his apparent belief that science is inherently untrustworthy. I mean, foreveryoung thinks that the world was made in six days. I'm pretty sure that you don't believe a word of that nonsense, so I'm at a loss to understand why your so keen to muddy the waters here. You're not helping.Your point is at best irrelevant, in truth both irrelevant and wrong.Mutate and Survive

Hi CS,To be honest, I agree with Tangle here; I think that it's your point that is beside the point.Foreveryoung was talking about the dogmatic content of the Bible, not its doctrinal content. Specifically, he was arguing that if we are willing to doubt the veracity of dogma in Genesis, then there is no reason not to place the Gospels under the same levels of soubt. Since this includes events like the resurrection of Jesus, which is fairly central to Christianity, this could be considered a major problem.Personally, I think that this argument is not without its merits. There is a grain of truth in it. Once we realise the foolishness of an Argument from Authority in the case of Genesis, it's hard not to notice the same problem with the rest of the Bible. Of course where foreveryoung goes wrong is in his solution to this conundrum; he blindly and uncritically embraces the fallacious argument for the entire Bible, clearly a big mistake. But still, the doctrinal content of the Bible doesn't really have anything to do with it. I agree with you that a fallible Bible does not diminish the worth of doctrines like love thy neighbour, but I really don't think that this directly addresses foreveryoung's point.Mutate and Survive

I'll combine my answers into a single post here. Absolutely nothing. Indeed, people should doubt these texts, even or perhaps especially those who hold to them. The problem is what happens when you apply that doubt to events like the resurrection; you find that there really isn't much evidence for them. Now obviously foreveryoung's treatment of this issue is over-the-top and naive, but there is a grain of truth in what he's saying. Once you start to read the Bible with a sceptical mind it starts to fall apart like a house of cards. Sure, I can see how your argument is related to what foreveryoung's saying, but I still don't think that it completely counters what he's saying. Agreed. I kind of assumed foreveryoung to mean "both literal and true". I agree that literalness and turth are not the same thing. the Bible could be both literal and false, or metaphorical and subjectively true, etc. True. Foreveryoung seemed to be talking about historical events in particular. It still seems to me that if the Bible is wrong about one historical event then it seems perverse to then rely on it as a historical guide, especially when it is the only historical source for an event - like the resurrection. This is what I mean when I say that there's a grain of truth in what foreveryoung is saying. Sure and I agree to that extent. However, I think that there is a worthwhile distinction to be drawn between historical dogmas and more subjective truths like the Golden Mean. Even if every single event in the Bible was non-historical, we would still be left with its subjective content, moral teachings and such (although I would personally doubt the value of these given what a mixed bag biblical morality can be). But if the bible is not reliable as a historical record, the historicity of many important events comes into doubt. I think that this is a problem for the more liberal branches of Club Christian and I don't think that it can be easily dismissed. Naturally! I agree that foreveryoung goes too far. I hope I have made it clear from the start that I do not completely agree with his position. Specifically, I would not regard the Bible as "worthless". That's a hyperbolic over-reaction. What I would say is that it does knock the Bible off its pedestal somewhat and it makes it look rather unreliable when used as a historical guide. I'm sure it would. But the error would make us view it with a good deal more scepticism. It certainly undermines any Argument form Authority based upon it. Further, if said textbook was the only source to make a specific claim, we would be justified in applying extreme doubt to that claim.Overall, I do agree that foreveryoung over-sates this problem, but I still think that the

The problem for foreveryoung is that when he starts to approach Genesis in a sensible way - as a historical document like any other - he is honour bound to do the same with the Gospels. Once you start to analyse the various books of the Bible in a sensible way, you are inevitably going to find problems. It's certainly not a matter of simply casting doubt on the Gospels directly because of Genesis containing falsehoods; that would be foolish as you say. It's more a matter of approach. Once you start taking a sceptical look at Genesis, you're going to find problems with it. And once you've reached that point, you're not going to be able to ignore that the same thing is going to happen when you look at the Gospels, not because they relate directly to Genesis, but because they have their own problems. In fact, some of these problems have close parallels in Genesis. Just as the two creation accounts put doubt on Genesis, the two differing versions of the death of Judas put doubt on the gospels. Even the apologetics used to counter these arguments are similar.Foreveryoung has come up with an ingenious solution to all this. He is going to bury his head in the sand and pretend that none of these problems exist. It probably works pretty well in terms of shielding him from uncomfortable truths. The trouble is that were he to pull his head out of the sand, he would not be able to limit his new vision to just Genesis. He would have to look at all the failings of the Bible (or indeed any other historical/mythological source) and for emotional reasons, that's not something he's willing to do. Too risky. he knows deep down that these problems exist and he knows instinctively that he won't be able to keep up his self-deception if he looks at them. So he keeps his head in the sand where it's nice and safe. But no-one ever claimed that both of those volumes were divinely inspired by the same god as part of his plan for humanity. Christians do make this claim for the various books of the Bible.That fact that the bible is a collection of disparate sources, most of which are only tangentially related to one another is one of the uncomfortable truths that foreveryoung is trying to avoid here. It undermines the notion that these books contain a single unified message from God, a notion that foreveryoung clearly finds comforting.You and I may agree that burying one's head in the sand is a poor way of regarding the world, but I can still see why foreveryoung is reluctant to pull it out and start looking around. He might not like what he sees.Genesis cannot directly disprove the Gospels, that is clearly true. but it does serve as an object lesson in how to read a historical text and how one should treat all sources with scepticism. Of course, this could just as easily work the other way around.Mutate and Survive

Hi NoNukes, Obviously I can't speak for foreveryoung, but if my experience is any guide, I would guess that he is only semi-concious of these problems with scripture, whilst maintaining the day-to-day belief that the Bible is inerrant. Cognitive dissonance? Yes please! Yeah, I'm equally perplexed by that. perhaps I have got him/her wrong, but it seems like a classic case of Fundie arrogance. They assume that forums like these will be an easy win. After all, the Bible is perfect. How can they fail?I find it hard to believe though that anyone can believe that without some subconscious doubts creeping in.There are always going to be cracks in their anti-reality armour. It's the awareness of these that forces them to react by retreating into an extreme position like the "perfect" Bible. It's ridiculous, but at least it frees them form the terrifying burden of having to think. True. Perhaps my example was not the best choice. This is not right. Judas kills himself in Matthew. In Acts, he falls and his guts burst open. It's not suicide in Acts. The stories are totally different. Like you say above though, it's a convenient way of pointing out the discrepancies in a "literal and true" approach to the text.Mutate and Survive

All praise High Priest Adequate. Sure. What's that got to do with Christianity exactly?Seriously though, I agree with you. It's just that the kind of Christianity that someone like foreveryoung practices is not in any way dependant on "ordinary claims for the historical accuracy of the gospels". They're based on the kind of claims that no sane historian would credit for a second. They're based on magic and fantasy. Once foreveryoung realise this, he's going to find it difficult to keep his rich fantasy life intact, whether that's Genesis, the Gospels or any other part of the Bible.If Fundamentalist Christians were to treat the Bible as a set of historical documents like any other, their entire religion would come crashing down and rightly so. I think that foreveryoung kind of half realises this and that's why he can't countenance treating the Bible as anything other than perfect. He dare not look behind the curtain in regards to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible, because he knows he won't like what he sees.You're quite right that an ordinary historical analysis of the gospels would not be affected by the accuracy of Genesis, but I don't think that's what Fundie Christians are engaged in. If only.Mutate and Survive

The key word there being "much". Yes, we have adopted much of the morality found in the Bible, but there are other bits that we reject. The genocide, the slavery, the misogyny, the murder of children, those bits we're not so keen to emulate. Curiously (and fortunately), neither are you. Isn't that odd? I agree. Christianity would not be the only source, but yes, that morality would remain. Okay, now that's just bonkers. I don't see how that follows at all.Nonetheless, I think that even utilitarianism is a bit of an improvement upon slavery and genocide don't you? I think we can live without that sort of "morality" from your "perfect" Bible.Mutate and Survive

Yes, how unreasonable of us to be unwilling to discuss ideas without attempting to find out whether those ideas are true or not. What rotters we are.If you want to continue to wallow in your ignorance then you are the only one who will lose out, so feel free.Mutate and Survive