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:   Points Of View
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 45 (484397)
09-28-2008 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
Agreed. But when it comes to interpreting evidence - some methods are better than others, yes?
So which is better?
On the one hand, we can look at the evidence, compare it to what we already believed about the world and try and interpret the evidence to somehow fit that whilst ignoring inconvenient evidence that might generally lead to a different conclusion.
Or we can try and develop an interpretation that is consistent with all of the evidence, and requires the fewest extraneous entities. We can't perfectly avoid the human tendency towards confirmation bias as above - but we can try and work out ways to limit it to the bare minimum.
You can understand why those that prefer the latter methodology might take issue with those that choose the former.
For example:
quote:
"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."
Now some see that, and combine it with the idea that when freshwater and saltwater meet in nature (rivers and seas for example) there is a barrier of sorts: they do not mix as one might expect. This, they argue, is evidence that God was behind the words since how would a person know that before modern science confirmed it?
This requires ignoring that the barrier is not unbreakable as suggested in the text (otherwise river water would back up and never become seawater), and ignoring the ancient middle eastern creation myths which begin with two watery entities (one salty and the other sweet) and a barrier, or firmament, made by the creator god to hold back the waters and before going to work on the world.
When you start putting it in full context, it is evidence that this kind of belief was still around in the Middle East in the 6th/7th Century, and had been coopted into a new religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:35 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 45 (485018)
10-04-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by b0ilingfrog
10-04-2008 3:35 AM


Agreed as you stated. I submit we all interpret with some bias. Mine is pretty much figuring God gave us a clue. What I do not see is this evidence I must be ignoring.
Well, if you saw it - you would not be ignoring it would you?
But there is plenty of it. You mentioned that radiometric dating was unreliable. You are more than likely only seeing a small amount of evidence there, and you are likely ignoring its context. You are also ignoring the significant amount of times that radiometric dating agrees with other dating methods.
But the specifics are not something we need get into in this topic.
You must be a superior theologian than I. I am not familiar with that quote or it's context. Coptic ?
Arabic.
quote:
[55.14] He created man from dry clay like earthen vessels,
[55.15] And He created the jinn of a flame of fire.
[55.16] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
[55.17] Lord of the East and Lord of the West.
[55.18] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
[55.19] He has made the two seas to flow freely (so that) they meet together:
[55.20] Between them is a barrier which they cannot pass.
[55.21] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
Two seas? I mean even the Med at the time of the writing of any of scripture was divided into more than two, let alone the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian, Atlantic... Something there alright. Which two? So much to learn so little time.
The sweet sea, and the salty sea seem like likely candidates given the history of middle eastern pagan religions and the possible beliefs of those the Qur'an was written to impress. See: Enuma Elish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:35 AM b0ilingfrog 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