I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

What have we "learned" in regards to modern psychology that refute the inherent selfishness of man, for example?Is the human condition portrayed any different from the human condition as we now understand it?

I am trying to get a meaningful answer to this: If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?In seeking such answers I have also sought to compare the way in which we reach conclusions about gravity with the way in which we reach conclusions about the bible (a la the topic)So far you have provided the following responses: When it comes to gravity what "works" is assessed in terms of being able to (as you put it) "adequately describe what is observed". Can we judge bible content on the same (rather scientific) basis?We could instead use the "accomplish the intended purpose" approach that you mention. But then it's entirely subjective and the link between what "works" and any sort of veracity is broken. For example if one's intended purpose is to feel comforted and reading Genesis (or whatever) achieves that aim then it can be said to "work". But the fact that it "works" in this way is no indicator of the truth or otherwise of the Genesis story.So - I ask again - If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?Simply talking about what "works" and then applying the scientific sense of what "works" to one case but not the other doesn't really help.

The thing about the human condition is that it's something humans are quite absorbed with and lots of books explore it to varying degrees...As an exploration of the human condition one could say that Ulysses "works". Or even Lord of the Rings or the Matrix if one wants to get pop cultured up.But none of these "work" in the way that General Relativity "works" do they? Phat - Do you think that the way to assess biblical veracity is the same as the way to assess a theory of gravity?

That's an unusually poor argument from you. They had no concept of gravity that could possibly explain the physical reality they were also ignorant of.You do.Ergo your understanding of gravity is superior to theirs. Obviously.

Sorry if it doesn't help you but that is actually how you do it. There is no one method.

They didn't need an explanation for a concept they didn't have. I don't need an explanation either, whether I have the concept or not.An "explanation" that I don't understand but can only parrot is not so very different from not having an explanation at all.

Yes and no. I am going to use the facts that I know and weigh them against the stories I read and study....but I also use faith to ascertain ideas for which no clear facts refute---the existence and presence of God, for example.You would probably use logical consistency and thus your faith would be in science and the Bible would be reduced to mere literature. (I assume that you seek concrete affirmation vs belief)I choose to believe what the book teaches...in part because I feel and believe that I was chosen by the Spirit of the book.Yes, I have no facts apart from my experience. Yes, I would prefer not to ascribe to a belief in science alone.

Of course not. Which is why they indisputably knew less about gravity than you do.

It isn't indisputable because I'm disputing it.You're misusing the word "know". I don't "know" any more about gravity than the parrot that can repeat the same rote "explanation".

OK. So are the methods applied to gravity the same or different to the methods applied to the bible?

quote:

---

Gravity is a force of nature that you experience every day. It's produced by all matter in the universe and attracts all pieces of matter, regardless of type. The Earth produces gravity and so do the sun, other planets, your car, your house, and your body.

---

Gravity for dummiesIf you read that and can understand written English you now know more about gravirty than Moses could have done, even if you didn't before.You're welcome.

Yes, and no.As I said there is no one right method just as there is no such thing as The Bible.

Ah... so the goalposts shift from I do know more to I could know more.I could also drink a Coke every day and Moses could not. However, I don't.

Right - But if I chose to believe in the existence of the Straggler boson particle because I feel and believe that the cosmos wants such a thing to exist I am not applying the same methods or criteria that led to belief in the exitence of the Higgs Boson.So it just isn't true to say that biblical conclusions and conclusions about things like gravity are adopted on the same basis. In fact it's nonsense.

Did you read the quote? Did it tell you you didn't already know?