Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Ancient texts in discussions of science?
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 16 of 64 (355205)
10-08-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DorfMan
10-08-2006 12:14 PM


Of Stars and Sand
Dorfman writes:
Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars”which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
Too late, from CNN.com, July 23, 2003 CNN.com - Star survey reaches 70 sextillion - Jul. 23, 2003 :
quote:
SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- Ever wanted to wish upon a star? Well, you have 70,000 million million million to choose from.
That's the total number of stars in the known universe, according to a study by Australian astronomers.
It's also about 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts.
The figure -- 7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion -- was calculated by a team of stargazers based at the Australian National University.
Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Guess the Bible predicts we will inhabit the universe, as long before that number is reached, the sheer number of people would melt the Earth's crust with just body heat.
The Bible is NOT a science book, NOT EVER. Yet it often refers to the great number of stars in the heavens and other things one might use as stepping stones to 'real' science:
I can't argue with the first sentence.
Edited by anglagard, : add link

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
Sir Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DorfMan, posted 10-08-2006 12:14 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 17 of 64 (355212)
10-08-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DorfMan
10-08-2006 12:14 PM


Re: a bit o' this a bit 'o that
quote:
Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
quote:
Isaiah 55:10
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,....
Think these two need to talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DorfMan, posted 10-08-2006 12:14 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by DorfMan, posted 10-08-2006 10:55 PM anglagard has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 18 of 64 (355301)
10-08-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by anglagard
10-08-2006 2:20 PM


Re: a bit o' this a bit 'o that
quote:
Think these two need to talk.
Make an appointment.
With any scientist who has a differing opinion from another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2006 2:20 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 10-08-2006 11:17 PM DorfMan has replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 19 of 64 (355303)
10-08-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Archer Opteryx
10-08-2006 1:52 PM


Re: Ancient View of the Cosmos
We are given dominion over our home. We are given a curiosity to explore this home. We are given results of our exploration, filled with satisfaction and passion and eagerness for more and more of the secrets we walk upon.
It's all my post was meant to say. God forbid I should trespass on the sanctity of holy science.
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Job 12:7-8
We have done it, do it, and will continue to do it. We have only scratched the surface.
Thank you for your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-08-2006 1:52 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-09-2006 12:39 AM DorfMan has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 20 of 64 (355304)
10-08-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by DorfMan
10-08-2006 10:55 PM


Re: a bit o' this a bit 'o that
Only difference is that scientist with differing opinions (in most cases) understand their fallibility.
However in reference to the bible we are talking about the supposed direct inerrant infallible "word of god". Mighty hefty claim indeed!
As I noted in below, no time as any inspired reader ever made a discovery based on his reading of the supposed inspired word of god. Therefore I agree heartly with you that it is not a Science Text.
I think in most ancient texts such as the Koran or Hindu scripts you can read them and find amazing correlations to known science. Similarly, one can read the sunday horoscopes or chinese cookies and find amazing insight to your personal life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by DorfMan, posted 10-08-2006 10:55 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DorfMan, posted 10-09-2006 8:14 AM iceage has replied
 Message 26 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-09-2006 9:02 AM iceage has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 21 of 64 (355313)
10-09-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by DorfMan
10-08-2006 11:07 PM


Re: Ancient View of the Cosmos
DorfMan:
God forbid I should trespass on the sanctity of holy science.
This is a strange attitude to take. Especially in light of what you say next.
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you." Job 12:7-8
Natural scientists are the last people in the world who need this admonishment. They already say it themselves. What do you think they do all day? These people have ordered their lives according to this wisdom.
As you read this, biologists and geologists and paleontologists are hard at work interrogating the animals and letting the birds of the air teach them. They pay close attetion to the answers they get. Science gives them a method for going about this that is uniquely productive.
They love what they do. And all of us are richer for it.
We have done it, do it, and will continue to do it. We have only scratched the surface.
Indeed. Natural scientists know this better than anybody. They feel it at their core. It fuels their efforts as they deepen their scratchings.
The search for truth takes many forms. Science has integrity; its method requires that it be itself. But it has no temple, as your bitter remark about 'holy science' suggests. You have not been placed outside of any camp, so it's silly to talk of 'trespassing.'
I shared with you what I did because that quote from Job is very often mistreated in the way I described. The Bible deserves more respect than that. Understanding ancient texts in their cultural context makes them even more beautiful. You get the full resonance of the ideas at work.
Thank you for your reply.
Thank you for taking the time to share the passages.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DorfMan, posted 10-08-2006 11:07 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 64 (355317)
10-09-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Woodsy
10-07-2006 10:48 AM


The ancients, naturally, knew and understood less than we moderns. Some ancient writings are accurate, some are not. Is the antiquity of a text a valid reason to reference it in a discussion?
Well, a truly ancient text is scientific evidence - evidence that humans, at one time, felt it important to write something down. The reason why they might have felt that way, and written what they did, is certainly a question that can be scientifically addressed.
Should an ancient text be given authority over modern scientific knowledge? I don't see why. Modern scientific knowledge comes from the application of the scientific method, which represents an evolutionary (if you will) advancement on previous techniques for inquiry about the natural world. Ancient texts that predate the scientific method obviously were not written with the benefit of this superior tool. Consequently, the information they contain certainly cannot be expected to be more accurate than information developed via scientific means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Woodsy, posted 10-07-2006 10:48 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 23 of 64 (355324)
10-09-2006 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Woodsy
10-07-2006 10:48 AM


Woodsy:
Ancient texts are sometimes referenced during discussions of scientific matters.
I understand all 'discussions' you mention after this point to be discussions of scientific matters.
I would like to ask if this is proper.
Ancient texts are part of our collective body of knowledge. Anything in that body of knowledge has potential value.
The ancients, naturally, knew and understood less than we moderns.
We know more about some things. They knew more about other things.
Generally speaking, we have a bigger understanding of the picture: how objects on earth and in the sky are related, how features we see on our planet came to be, the forces that cause things to behave as they do, how our communities relate to others, etc. We also have more advanced technological knowledge.
The ancients possessed knowledge that was necessarily more local in scope and more limited technologically. But what they knew they knew well. Their knowledge was still valid knowledge--and valuable.
Many people today would be thrilled to know what the Harappans knew about reading their own writing. We would love to know what the Mayans knew about their music. We would love to know what the Hittites knew about speaking their own language. We would love to know what Oetzi knew about how he spent his last days. This is all knowledge someone once possessed. Someone once knew this subject intimately, took the knowledge for granted. We can only gain glimpses of what they knew.
Our technology for travel far exceeds that of the ancients. But put any of us in a boat in the open ocean with no communications equipment and no navigation tools? It's safe to say we would not fare nearly as well as the Stone Age Micronesians who settled in Taiwan 6000 years ago. They knew how to navigate accurately with no tools, how to know if previously undiscovered islands lay over the horizon--even how to predict, sight unseen, how many islands lay out there. And they knew better than most of us how to survive on an island once they landed.
Our ability to send text around the world is unprecedented. But if you put us in a dimly lit room with animal skins and inks and brushes, and ask us to copy a book by hand, most of us would make a hash of the job. We certainly would not produce the quality of work monks produced ten centuries ago.
Knowledge gained, knowedge lost.
Some ancient writings are accurate, some are not.
True. And in this respect their antiquity is incidental. Quality control is a never-ending challenge in all human endeavors. Some modern documents are accurate, too, and some are not.
One assesses the accuracy of texts, old or new, in much the same way. The passage of time introduces complications for older documents but the basic process is the same.
Is the antiquity of a text a valid reason to reference it in a discussion?
If its antiquity is relevant to the discussion. In that case the document represents a primary source.
Trilobite fossils are nautral 'documents' of great antiquity. Is it valid to make reference to them in a discussion? If the trilobites or their world are what you intend to understand, the primary source is indispensable.
Otherwise, no. The date on a document does not by itself make the document more or less relevant to the discussion than others of a different date.
That said, the reality remains: the more recent the document, the more recent the knowledge the writers had access to. The more ancient the document, the more ancient the knowledge the writers had access to.
Recent documents are far preferred in scientific discussions for this reason. Science is a process of ongoing discovery. A statement has to square with the body of knowledge as it exists today for it to carry any authority as science.
Real science documents--documents written directly from observations and experiments employing the scientific method--are always greatly preferred over non-scientific and pre-scientific literature. This is not because other writings lack importance, but because their importance lies mainly in other areas. Science documents exist to address scientific concerns. Other kinds of documents exist to address other kinds of concerns.
One uses all documents available with an eye to the strengths and weaknesses of each.
In some cases, a text has been declared holy by some religion or other, and its adherents accord the text authority.
By 'authority' here I understand you to mean authority as a supernatural revelation delivered in literary form.
Adherents of other religions, or none, however, are under no obligation to accord the text any authority.
The text will not speak with the same authority to those outside the religious community as to those within it. This is true by definition: non-adherents do not adhere. (The question of 'obligation' is a different matter, but that lies outside the realm of scientific discussion.)
Are holy texts useful when discussions include non-adherents?
Holy texts are useful in a pluralistic environment the same way any documents are useful as a potential source of information.
Holy texts are useless in such an environment for settling debate by appeals to divine authority. Persuasion of this sort is only possible within the boundaries of the religous community that regards the text as revelation. The appeal is useless in persuading non-adherents who do not grant this.
The same may be said of any appeal to divine revelation, regardless of whether a text is involved.
Appeals to supernatural authority are always non-scientific. This is true whether the environment is pluralistic or not. Science explores natural phenomena and seeks natural explanations. Introduction of supernatural causes and phenomena takes the discussion outside the realm of science.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Woodsy, posted 10-07-2006 10:48 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 24 of 64 (355346)
10-09-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
10-08-2006 11:17 PM


Re: a bit o' this a bit 'o that
I see you are familiar with the Teutul-Tawnics studies. Then you should be able to tell me which part of the Bible is fallible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 10-08-2006 11:17 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Nighttrain, posted 10-09-2006 8:30 AM DorfMan has not replied
 Message 27 by iceage, posted 10-09-2006 11:20 AM DorfMan has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 25 of 64 (355350)
10-09-2006 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by DorfMan
10-09-2006 8:14 AM


Re: a bit o' this a bit 'o that
Then you should be able to tell me which part of the Bible is fallible.
Well, so far, everything up to and including Solomon looks pretty shaky archaeologically. And parts of the Gospels are dodgy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DorfMan, posted 10-09-2006 8:14 AM DorfMan has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 26 of 64 (355357)
10-09-2006 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
10-08-2006 11:17 PM


a bit of this and that... from the Taoist canon
troxelso:
I think in most ancient texts such as the Koran or Hindu scripts you can read them and find amazing correlations to known science. Similarly, one can read the sunday horoscopes or chinese cookies and find amazing insight to your personal life.
I don't think there's a single point being made here by scientists that Bible believers wouldn't understand at once, and make themseves, if I got it in my head to introduce ancient Taoist texts as authorities in a science discussion.
Most Bible believers would concede the value of these documents as literature, cultural artifacts, and repositories of ancient art and knowledge. But they would reject at once my attempt to use these texts to set parameters on science. And they would be spectacularly unconvinced by any attempt to appeal to these documents as revelation.
Does anyone think this would be affected one bit if I attempted to justify the effort by quoting the most beautiful passages? If I said the texts often contain accurate observations of the natural world? If I dared them to tell me which passages in the text were reliable and which were not?
Of course not.
As East, so West. Non-adherents will assess the relevance of someone else's holy book the same way they assess the relevance of any document. No special breaks.
And natural science, true to its name, will work with natural phenomena and natural causes.
_
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Title.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 10-08-2006 11:17 PM iceage has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 27 of 64 (355370)
10-09-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by DorfMan
10-09-2006 8:14 AM


No science in bible
I see you are familiar with the Teutul-Tawnics studies
Not at all. In fact Google is not familiar with them either - A misspelling perhaps?
But if this has something to do with biblical inerrency please provide more information. This is maybe even something for another topic?
As far as what part of the bible is fallible - well, that is easy. Do you want me to narrow it down to a particular book?
If I start on my own and start listing things that qualify the bible being fallible I would be starting a discussion that some would consider off topic. As such i will resist the temptation. i recommend you start a new topic - it maybe informative for both of us.
But let me comment once again - I do not believe the bible contains any significant information about the nature of universe other than what the writers knew about the universe at the time of writing. No inspiration is evident. This is essentially woodsy statement. I will claim emphatically:
  • There is no inspired scientific revelations inserted by God to "wow" later readers.
  • There is no inspired scientific revelations inserted by God that a later inspired reader could use to develop a scientific hypothesis that would extend our understand of creation. Proof of this statement, is that no one has done this to date.
    Given this, why do some (I am not saying you do) want to use the bible as a scientific textbook and constrain the advancement of science?
    There are people that believe all scientific hypothesis should flow from the bible.
    For example, a user here has stated that geologist should not even question "if" the flood happened but "how" it happened!!!!!!
    It is because of such dark age inspired claims like the above that some, including myself, take on a slightly aggressive stance to this notion that the bible is authoritative with respect to science.
    Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by DorfMan, posted 10-09-2006 8:14 AM DorfMan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by DorfMan, posted 10-09-2006 2:11 PM iceage has replied

      
    DorfMan
    Member (Idle past 6081 days)
    Posts: 282
    From: New York
    Joined: 09-08-2005


    Message 28 of 64 (355399)
    10-09-2006 2:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by iceage
    10-09-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: No science in bible
    Well, the Teutul-Tawnics gives a much broader perspective of why the Bible should not be used as a science book, for those who do not immediately recognize this on their own. But, the obsevations of those living during that time, should not be discredited as observations, after all, observation is a good beginning. Newton observed the apple falling, bingo. I'm surprised you did not find the Teutul-Tawnics.
    Well, should you or another poster come across it, I am certain you will gain a vista not had as yet. Good luck!
    Hey, you might even ask around!
    Even a cursory study will get you ready for a discussion on the subject. But, that should be completed first.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by iceage, posted 10-09-2006 11:20 AM iceage has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by iceage, posted 10-10-2006 4:28 PM DorfMan has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 29 of 64 (355450)
    10-09-2006 7:23 PM


    We make things up
    Written records are written by people and people lie and people tell stories. There are written accounts of Mount Olympus, Valhalla and Middle Earth. FYI they are not real.
    Science is the study of physical evidence. Without physical evidence to corroborate written accounts they have little scientific value at all.
    History/archaology is more dependant on written evidence but historians never claim that written records are anything but a subjective and quite possibly inaccurate clue to what really happened. I understand that the city of Troy although written of was not really thought to have actually existed until relataively recent physical evidence was unearthed.
    As for taking the bible (or Koran or any other holy text) as scientific evidence - You might as well take the Illiad or the Lord of the Rings as your guide to physical reality.

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 30 of 64 (355687)
    10-10-2006 4:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 28 by DorfMan
    10-09-2006 2:11 PM


    Re: No science in bible
    Teutul-Tawnics
    Are you sure of this spelling. Google is blank on that term.
    I have heard of Gin Tawnics, but it is bit late in the seasons for those.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by DorfMan, posted 10-09-2006 2:11 PM DorfMan 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