Summations Only

In the only context where this can be a correct statement, everything is evidence. In the context of religions of the world, most religions include articles of faith for which there is no hard evidence, and Christianity is no different. If I wasn't explicit enough, I was asking for positive supporting evidence of the virgin birth. Yes, exactly.As the Wikipedia article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus states, "the modern scholarly consensus is that it rests 'on very slim historical foundations.'" (see Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12, page 37)Faith just likes to say her faith is supported by evidence. When pressed her evidence becomes church traditions or the fact that millions have believed this or that over the centuries. If millions believing something was acceptable evidence then OJ would be in prison for murder.--Percy

Or maybe he could understand that his faith is not supported by evidence, may even be contradicted by it, but believe it anyway.--Percy

Yeah, well, not really. For example, if you conclude that the Gospel account is historical then that is something you accept on faith, not evidence. A concordance of corroborating historical data is simply absent, and science tells us that virgin births pre-IVF were impossible and that there is no evidence of any mechanism for impregnation by holy spirits nor even for the existence of holy spirits.One can tell oneself, as Faith does, that the Bible is conclusive evidence of the virgin birth, but the belief has no objective reality behind it. When Faith speaks she is usually telling us something that is true about her religious beliefs and inner convictions, but only rarely does she ever tell us anything true about the real world. That's because truth about the real world doesn't come from deciding what you believe in this book and reject from that book, but from studying the real world.Conclusions based upon religious beliefs, hopelessly entangled as they are upon hopes for an afterlife, answered prayers and divine blessings, are the least likely beliefs one can imagine having much support from real world observations. The Bible should be approached with as much skepticism as the Book of the Dead and any other book. Those who give the Bible greater credence do so because it is *their* religious book and not because it possesses any particular qualifications as objective evidence.--Percy

Well, if calling for conclusions (whatever that means) about the virgin birth means the Gospel accounts constitute evidence, then I guess calling for conclusions about elves means The Hobbit constitutes evidence. You're expending effort trying to justify a belief that your preferred holy book rates more serious consideration as evidence than other books. It doesn't. It merits such status only to extent that it can be successfully and seamlessly intermingled with the fabric already woven by other real-world evidence.When we want to understand the real world we observe and draw our evidence from the real world. We might instead draw that evidence by proxy from a book, a paper, a lecture, or a conversation, provided those sources themselves derive from observations and evidence from the real world.The Bible *can* serve as just this sort of proxy for evidence. Some portions of the Bible do reflect observations and evidence from the real world. Jerusalem is a real place. Herod was a real person.Other portions of the Bible are fantastic or miraculous. Lot's wife did not turn into a pillar of salt. Jonah did not spend three days in the belly of a whale. Mary was not impregnated by the holy spirit. In an age where we know that even strict adherence to the scientific method doesn't guarantee a successful understanding of the real world it makes no sense to argue that our favorite book of myths and revelation is positive evidence for things that studious attention to reality says are fanciful. To argue that the Bible is evidence for the Holy Spirit, and that morality is evidence for the Holy Spirit, you may as well argue "that there's something instead of nothing" is evidence for the Holy Spirit, too. At this point evidence is no longer a tool of understanding but a rhetorical device of obfuscation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Okay. In my own personal universe there is only evidence with a sliding scale of quality and science as the standard. Text of a religious book (any religious book, I'm not picking on the Bible) relating a miraculous but impossible event ranks near the bottom.There are many apocryphal stories of Jesus's childhood relating miracles that didn't make it into the canon, they are text that someone wrote and believed (as is The Book of the Dead that jar mentioned) yet you give them little or no credence. You're on much more rational and consistent ground when you describe your beliefs as based upon faith instead of evidence. I understand you say it isn't evidence in a scientific sense, and using the word in that way is fine in discussions confined to a religious context, but in discussions here it might be better to avoid using the word evidence in a non-scientific sense since it will be constantly confused with the scientific definition. Maybe you could use some other term, perhaps testimony, which at least has a familiar religious interpretational context.--Percy

I'm not understanding some of what you're saying: "The Bible is not fiction...despite the fact that the Bible contains stories that are not descriptions of events that actually occurred."Is it that you don't like the term "fiction"? Would "myths" be better?--Percy

Proper word usage isn't so simple. Books on ESP research would be placed in the non-fiction section of your local library, as would books on creationism, so of course the same would be true of books on Hoyle's cosmology. But one of those books might easily contain the statement, "Hoyle's cosmology turned out to be a fiction." Okay, now I think I see where you're coming from. Sure, you can't just classify every Bible book or passage as either fact or fiction because there's much more diversity and nuance than that. But that's not what most people are going to think you mean if you say things like, "The Bible is not fiction," and "I don't consider any of the Bible to be fiction..." Particularly that last statement. Clearly some of the Bible is fiction, including some huge swatches. They're fiction in the sense of not being true, not in the sense of being the modern concept of a novel or short story.--Percy

Fred Hoyle was a titanic figure in cosmology in the middle of the 20th century, possibly the greatest scientist to never win a Noble Prize. He unfailingly followed his scientific instincts wherever they led, causing him to back his steady state theory long after the accumulated evidence sentenced it to the scrapheap. This obstinacy and reluctance to abandon a theory he championed is probably what cost him the Noble Prize. In later years he argued in favor of some creationist positions, and is often credited with the idea for panspermia.--Percy

Apparently not. I was just trying to understand your meaning, which wasn't (and still isn't) clear to me. Maybe I'll try to catch you at a better time.--Percy

I'm afraid I still don't understand where you're coming from. You seem to be insisting on the vocabulary people must use to express certain thoughts, else risk being accused of equivocation and playing dumb.I can understand if you intended a specific definition of fiction when you said, "I don't consider any of the Bible to be fiction...", but which definition isn't clear from context, at least not to me, and your use of one definition doesn't require other people to forgo using other definitions.The Bible is full of stories about people who never existed and events that never happened. Adjectives like "fiction" and "fictional" are often applied to such stories. When I was growing up and learning various mythologies in my Unitarian Sunday school classes I viewed the story of Noah and the story of Icarus both as works of fiction.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I understand the point you're trying to convey when you say "language is slippery," but it doesn't really capture the rich vehicle of creativity and innovation of language. The conciseness necessary in many technical spheres requires discouraging non-standard terminology, but we're in no such sphere.So maybe we're just going to have to disagree about whether sentences like, "In the end Hoyle's view of a steady state universe turned out to be a fiction," represents a non-standard use, but what about sentences like this:

• The steady state universe proved to be a fantasy.
• The steady state universe was more a product of Hoyle's imagination than any evidence.
• Hoyle was just spinning yarns when he became convinced that the universe was steady state.
• The steady state universe turned out to be a crock.
• The steady state universe suffered the same fate as much other hooey.

If you don't approve of those here, here are some example uses I found on the web:

• Quote 1:: "Some folks resisted the Big Bang as hooey..."
• Quote 2: "While this Big Bash model provides a means for generating big bangs, it does not attempt to explain the creation of the universe. That yarn remains for future theorists to unravel."
• Quote 3: "Another fantasy that was discredited decades ago." [Referring to the steady state universe]

Constrain your own vocabulary if you must, but please leave the rest of us free to weave our sentences with the best our inspirations can provide.But I still don't understand what you meant when you said, "I don't consider any of the Bible to be fiction..." I at one point asked you if it was merely a terminological issue, if perhaps you preferred the term "myths", but you didn't reply. Certainly stories like Noah's flood and Jonah's three days in the big fish are not accounts of events that really happened, so if they're not fictional then what are they? Some possibilities: fanciful, imaginary, made-up, invented, mythical, allegorical, fantasies, traditions, untrue.--Percy

But if not fiction then what is it? The problems with the stories of Noah and Jonah go beyond being non-literal or inaccurate. They never happened. I don't see why you are saying this. Relating a story you believe to be true that is actually fiction doesn't mean the story isn't fiction. Yes, and A Tale of Two Cities is not just a story of an identity swap that never really happened. It also relates a number of events that really did happen and describes a number of places that really do (or did) exist. A Tale of Two Cities is fiction. What's the Book of Jonah? Calling it "non-literal" or "inaccurate" doesn't come close. You have an opinion you support by casting aspersions at dissenting opinions. I'm neither equivocating nor playing dumb. Why don't you answer the question? If Noah and Johan aren't fiction, what are they? I don't think Hoyle's steady state theory was pre-Hubble. The universe was at first assumed to be steady state, then Hubble discovered evidence of an expanding universe, then Hoyle introduced his version of a steady state theory where new matter slowly but continuously pops into existence. I expressed it the way I did because in later years (after his star evolution work, i.e., post-1940) Hoyle's views could be influenced as much by his inner inclinations and convictions as by external evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Clarify 1st sentence of last para.

Well, in that case it would be accurate to say that you believe the flood is a fiction. I understand you believe that is non-standard terminology, and you understand that I believe it is not, so we'll just have to disagree about that, too.--Percy

Regarding superstition, I'm not sure about the distinction you may be drawing. It seems as if you might be implying that belief in some things like leprechauns or voodoo can rightly considered superstitions, but that belief in other things like gods or God cannot be considered superstitions. Am I correct in interpreting it this way? If so then I can't see any justification for that distinction.I agree with what I think is your other point, that an account's inclusion of superstitious notions isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of authenticity or accuracy.--Percy

Since thinking Biblically requires one to ignore facts of the real world, and since thinking rationally requires one to reason from facts of the real world, the characterization of irrational is an inescapable conclusion, not a "stupid bias."--Percy