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:   Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 305 (202194)
04-25-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
04-25-2005 11:31 AM


Re: Back to the point
Hi Faith,
I think anyone would grant that the Koran differs markedly from the Bible, but you seem to be saying that the Bible is the prototypical religious text, and that religious texts which do not follow its template do not possess spirtual credibility.
It would be really really nice if even one person here would address a point I actually made, some of which are:
The Bible IS concerned with witness accounts; the Koran is not.
I thought I saw this addressed a couple times. Looking back through the thread, I see TheStudent addressed this point in Message 49. I didn't look any further back.
But even if we grant for the sake of argument that the Bible contains witness accounts and the Koran does not, you haven't explained how this difference bears on each text's spirtual credibility. Why could not a supporter of the Koran argue that it is superior because it is free of witness accounts?
Further, we have yet to clearly define witness accounts. As the other thread made clear, saying that something was witnessed and having evidence that it was truly witnessed are different things.
I'll leave it to others to address the rest of the specifics of your post. I think I've made my point that all you've really said is that the Koran and the Bible are two different books. Whether one approach is superior to the other regarding spirtual truth remains an open question. The criteria used for making such a judgement must first be agreed upon. You can't unilaterally declare the criteria, especially when they boil down to, "Koran not like the Bible, so Koran not valid."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 11:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 305 (202273)
04-25-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
04-25-2005 2:00 PM


Re: Back to the point
Faith writes:
The topic of this thread is the Validity of Differing Eyewitenss Accounts in Religious Texts.
Oh, come on, Faith. Everyone knows you were already off the thread's topic. You were already talking about the number of Biblical authors over 15 centuries and how only the Bible quotes God and so forth, plus you stated your agenda of judging the relative authenticity of Koran and Bible in your conclusion to Message 59:
Faith writes:
These are important facts concerning the authentication of the Bible versus the Koran. Just about everybody here is discussing something other than these facts.
If you'd like to stick to the topic and address the issue of how one assesses the validity of eyewitness accounts in religious texts, then that's fine. If you'd like to shift the focus slightly and instead consider the relative validity of Koran and Bible as measured by eyewitness accounts, that's fine, too. Or if you want to actually discuss the relative authenticity of Koran versus Bible as you were already well on your way to doing but are now backpedaling wildly, then we're willing to do that, too. After all, what is EvC Forum here for if not to cater to Faith's every whim.
But make up your mind, will ya?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 2:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 4:00 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 305 (202334)
04-25-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-25-2005 5:08 PM


Re: What about the religions where there is a large body of eye witness accounts
The Eastern documents only record philosophical discussions, and their religious import is in their wisdom, the wisdom of their author or authors. The Koran is more like these except it seems to focus heavily on commands and threats of dire consequences, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers.
I've never read the Koran, but I've paged through it quite a bit, and this doesn't match my recollection. So I began reading from page 1 from an online copy (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html) and it appears easy to find recountings of events, though more minor than in the Bible. This is from Chapter 28, The Narratives, starting at 28.13, just a short portion to give the flavor. It's a story about Moses:
So We gave him back to his mother that her eye might be refreshed, and that she might no grieve, and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true, but most of them do not know.
And when he attained his maturity and became full grown, We granted him wisdom and knowledge; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others).
And he went into the city at a time of unvigilance on the part of its people, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his party and the other of his foes, and he who was of his party cried out to him for help against him who was of his enemies, so Musa struck him with his fist and killed him. He said: This is on account of the Shaitan's doing; surely he is an enemy, openly leading astray.
We all recognize this, of course. It's the same story that appears in Exodus 2:11. By what criteria do you judge the relative authenticity of these stories?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 5:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 6:06 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 115 of 305 (202350)
04-25-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
04-25-2005 5:12 PM


Re: Can't prove Moses even existed?
Faith writes:
YOu can't even prove the existence of your great grandfather. Same problem.
Well, this isn't true for everyone. Many people can visit their great grandfather's grave (I can, and for my children it's their great, great grandfather), and many families have records and pictures and so forth. Your degreee of skepticism that a gravesite contains someone's great grandfather governs the amount of evidence required. If that degree of documentation is sufficient, then fine, but if you require eyewitnesses to the intervening copulations and fingerprints for everyone involved, that's another matter. I'm not saying this is reasonable, just making the point that the desired degree of certainty affects the amount of evidence you require.
The longer ago something happened the less evidence there tends to be. In the case of all events in the Bible, they occurred about two or more thousand years ago, and few accounts were written by eyewitnesses. There is physical evidence for many Biblical places, but little physical evidence of any event. What level of certainty do you want to achieve for the stories in the Bible? If you set the level very low then you can accept them all, but if you apply, let's say, some fairly traditional standards of history, few if any of them can be considered as known to have happened.
One good example of a Biblical event, series of events, actually, that we're almost certain happened is the seige of Jerusalem under King Hezekiah by Sennacherib of Assyria. Both the Bible and inscriptions by Sennacherib's own documentarians attest to what happened (there are some differences of detail, but the general outlines are the same), and archeologists have discovered destruction levels of the right age at sites of some cities that Sennacherib is supposed to have leveled before tackling Jerusalem. So historians are pretty sure this really happened.
But what of Jesus's sermon on the mount? We have the Bible to tell us it happened, and that's it. The Bible says thousands were there, but anyone can write, "Thousands were there." By what criteria do you adjudge the account of the sermon on the mount credible and authentic?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 5:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 9:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 305 (202427)
04-25-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
04-25-2005 6:06 PM


Re: What about the religions where there is a large body of eye witness accounts
Faith writes:
They do not occur within a historical framework but are just stuck in here and there, which I already pointed out, and many of them are lifted from the Bible and rewritten to suit Muslim prejudices and deny the original Biblical record. They teach nothing about the character of God and His relation to humanity, as the Bible history does, they are just there to convince Muslims the Bible is wrong and they are right.
I think you probably want to avoid making assessments of the relative authenticity of the Koran and Bible. We're just trying to establish some common criteria for judging the authenticity of eyewitness accounts in religious texts.
Okay, so now let's take your criteria and get a bit more rigorous. I ask the Moslems here to also assess your criteria, but I'll examine them now myself one by one:
  1. Authentic accounts appear in historical frameworks.
    How does this apply to the story of Moses in either the Bible or the Koran? I can understand referring to the Bible as having a narrative framework, but not a historical one. There is nothing about the story of Moses that has been confirmed from a historical perspective, including whether he ever even existed.
  2. The accounts should not appear in hither and yon random fashion.
    This doesn't seem a valid criteria, but is merely the way the Bible happens to be structured in much of it. Just because the Bible threads eye witnessed events into a narrative does not mean that's the only way they can appear. Is there something about a narrative structure that can be interpreted as evidence of authenticity? For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh also possesses a strong narrative structure. Why should we consider that evidence of authenticity? In fact, since fiction has a much stronger narrative structure than does history, a strong narrative structure would seem to be evidence against authenticity rather than for.
  3. Older accounts are more likely authentic than newer versions.
    I agree with this criteria. It is true in many cases. The legend of King Author grew more detailed with time, as did the legend of William Tell, but accuracy diminished and most of the details were fabricated.
    But by this criteria we must judge the earlier mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh more authentic than the story of Noah from the Bible.
  4. Authentic accounts teach about the character of God and his relation to humanity.
    I have to disagree with this criteria. I can't see how teaching this lesson is related to authenticity. Perhaps you can explain more.
In summary, the only criteria you provided that I can agree with is that older accounts are more likely to be authentic than newer ones. Notice I didn't say the older account is the authentic one. It is possible, even likely in many cases, that neither account is authentic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 6:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 11:26 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 135 of 305 (202431)
04-25-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
04-25-2005 9:20 PM


Re: Can't prove Moses even existed?
Faith writes:
Sermon on the Mount. Yes, as you say, "we have the Bible to tell us it happened and that's it." If you don't find it credible, I'm tired of trying to prove it. I find it credible as is. No amount of argument has accomplished anything here and obviously none is going to. I'm just an arrogant ignorant hard cold bigoted intolerant stupid YEC. Yup, the Bible is IT. Take it or leave it.
Faith, are we having a serious discussion here or not? If you're feeling unable, for whatever reason, to hold up your end of a serious discussion then take a break, but please do not waste people's time with non-answers. It seems like you bounce back and forth between serious discussion and venting frustration. Occasionally venting frustration is fine, we're all human, but one shouldn't make it a daily habit.
Now let's reset. We're trying to establish by what criteria we should assess the validity of eyewitness accounts in the Bible. In my Message 115, the one that you replied to here, I noted the contrast between ancient events in the Bible for which there is corroborating evidence (the Sennacherib campaign again King Hezekiah) and those for which there is no corroborating evidence (Jesus's Sermon on the Mount).
I also noted that the amount of evidence required depends upon the degree of certainty required. In any area of study there will always be some things we can establish better than others, and there will also be some things we can never establish at all. There can't be equal certainty of everything. There can be no doubt that there is far more evidence for the Sennacherib campaign than for the Sermon on the Mount, and the criteria we establish in this discussion should enable us to place eyewitnessed events into a hierarchy of certainty. I discussed the criteria you offered earlier in my previous post.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 9:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 11:55 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 305 (202483)
04-26-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
04-25-2005 11:55 PM


Re: Can't prove Moses even existed?
Faith writes:
If your faith is honest and genuine, however tiny, it will grow until you understand and embrace more and more of God's revelation. On the contrary, if you have no faith, if you assent to bits and pieces of God's Word on an intellectual basis only, if you read only intellectual critics and scorn the Bible exegetes of the legitimate churches, and reject other parts of it because your intellect is offended by them, with no trust in any of it as a revelation from God, of mysteries hidden from the natural mind, then you will never get it. It's as good as dead to you, this Living Word.
Yes, of course, faith is the key element in accepting the Bible as the word of God. I think that's what everyone on the science side has been saying all along. I expect that very few here have any problem with those who begin their spirtual journey based upon faith.
But I haven't forgotten your claim that there is a significant intellectual component. I at one point said the Bible wasn't accepted as an article of faith but of fact, and that you accepted the Bible stories not because they appealed to your intellect but because they brought joy to your heart, and you replied in Message 143 of the A Working Definition of God thread:
Absolutely false. They appealed to my intellect first. They made sense to my mind first. The most satisfying point of my original spiritual explorations was when I understood Original Sin. That was the concept that made everything in this nutty universe make sense -- that we are FALLEN, and are not what we were meant to be. That explains all the misery in this world, all the stupidity, all the confusion, all the clashing opinions, all the harm people do to one another. All that is absolutely inexplicable without understanding our Fall in Eden. Discovering that was a decidedly INTELLECTUAL joy, and the intellectual joys have only multipled since then.
Okay, but now that you've finally conceded that faith is also involved, it is important to reiterate my earlier point, that you can't conclude that hard extra-Biblical evidence must exist just because the stories possessed intellectual appeal for you.
Faith, if I could again bring up an old topic, you can't go about railing at everyone who holds different opinions. Find enough love and compassion in your heart for those who believe differently to treat their views with respect instead of scorn, belittlement, derision and dismissal. Do you really believe God needs or wants this kind of help? Conduct yourself humbly in the world and avoid arrogance. Pray to the Lord for assistance, he will answer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 04-25-2005 11:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 04-26-2005 4:05 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 04-28-2005 8:40 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 232 of 305 (203499)
04-28-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
04-28-2005 8:40 PM


Re: Can't prove Moses even existed?
Hi Faith,
If at some point you feel you can clarify how you're defining faith and intellect in the context of interpreting the validity of eyewitness accounts we can come back to this point. For now I'll try to continue the discussion by addressing a couple of your comments from your Message 139. I didn't originally reply to it because it seemed to more be drawing a contrast between Bible and Koran than addressing the topic, but since the message it replied to attempted to address the criteria you enumerated in your Message 111 I can use it as an on-topic launching point.
I rephrased your points in my Message 134, and I list them here again, but without the elaborations:
  1. Authentic accounts appear in historical frameworks.
  2. The accounts should not appear in hither and yon random fashion.
  3. Older accounts are more likely authentic than newer versions.
  4. Authentic accounts teach about the character of God and his relation to humanity.
I agreed only with point 3. Your reply emphasized a Biblical uniqueness that rendered the other points valid for it, though not for other sources. But lets imagine you're a historian of the future long after Christianity (and all other contemporary religions) have died out and are no longer remembered. A copy of the Bible has just been uncovered and translated into modern Galactic, and you've taken on the task of assessing the validity of the portions that are eyewitness accounts. What criteria will you use? Would you still use the criteria listed above? If so, wouldn't these criteria have the weaknesses I listed in Message 134?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 04-28-2005 8:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 04-29-2005 3:13 AM Percy has replied
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 05-01-2005 2:38 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 237 of 305 (203634)
04-29-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
04-29-2005 3:13 AM


Re: Brief reorientation to the history of this topic
Faith writes:
The reason I keep contrasting the Bible to the Koran is that that's how General Krull set up this topic. He quoted the Koran.
True, but some here are allowing this to confuse them about the topic of the thread. General Krull's key question from Message 1 was this:
General Krull writes:
What is the criteria that we should (or do) use to make an assumption of validity?
He followed it with a couple passages from the Koran in order to provide some specific focus. He was asking people to propose criteria and apply them to the example Koran passages so we could see how well the criteria work. He was not changing the topic of this thread in the middle of message one to be the validity of the Koran versus the Bible. For this thread, the Koran and the Bible and other religious and historical works are only there to provide examples of eyewitness accounts for us to analyze.
Those who believe this is a Koran versus Bible thread are mistaken. Checkmate's presence would have been a help because he could more expertly interpret passages from the Koran, just as you more expertly interpret passages from the Bible, but he instead tried to carry the final battle between Christianity and Islam into this thread.
That's all just to deal with the first part of your post. I have the rest of it saved to think about later.
Take all the time you need.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 04-29-2005 3:13 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 305 (204175)
05-01-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
05-01-2005 2:38 PM


Re: The Bible in Galactic
I'll just briefly address a couple things since you're not likely to reply. The topic of the thread is establishing some objective criteria for establishing the validity of eyewitness accounts in religious texts. I don't think you've made any progress toward that goal.
Faith writes:
In the absence of any memory of any religion whatever, it is very hard to guess as there would be nothing to compare it with.
You mean the Bible by itself isn't sufficient?
If we did have some remnants of the many other religions, I think I would be very impressed at how the Bible is such a complete history of events over such a long period of time, some 1500 years, realizing there is nothing else like it. I'd be curious about the fact that it presents a Creator God who made this whole galaxy and the universe itself...etc...
But the question was, "You've taken on the task of assessing the validity of the portions that are eyewitness accounts. What criteria will you use?" You didn't agree with the items that emerged frmo my attempt to turn your brief paragraph from Message 111 into a concise set of criteria, but your criticisms were of no help. Drawing upon your detailed reply in Message 139, you keep saying things like, " It does not need to be 'confirmed' by unbelievers to be history," and "You may have to have an 'ear' for it" (for recognizing authentic history), but you've made no progress toward developing objective criteria that an actual historian might use.
Though you've claimed there was an intellectual side to your acceptance of the accuracy of the Bible as history, this isn't apparent from anything you've said. You once mentioned that you used to be an atheist. Perhaps if you can recall important portions of the intellectual journey that convinced you of the Bible's accuracy it would help.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 05-01-2005 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 3:16 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 261 of 305 (204275)
05-02-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
05-02-2005 3:16 AM


Re: The Bible in Galactic
Faith writes:
Sorry but I know I'm right about a lot of it, and it's very wearying to take the endless commands to jump through hoops giving proof only to hear it wasn't good enough by some weird standard.
I'm not asking you to jump through hoops. I'm only asking you to address the topic of the thread. The opening post poses this question about eyewitness accounts:
What is the criteria that we should (or do) use to make an assumption of validity?
I attempted to paraphrase your criteria and you objected to it. Perhaps if you just listed your criteria yourself it would help. I mean a real list, like this:
  1. (first criteria for judging the validity of eyewitness accounts)
  2. (second criteria for judging the validity of eyewitness accounts)
  3. etc...
You say "I know I'm right", and that's nice, but if you can't explain the means by which you came to know you're right how do you expect others to follow your path?
If it helps, one of the primary criterion for historians in establishing such things is to have as many independent confirming pathways of evidence as possible. The more this requirement is satisfied, the more certainty some person or event of history is felt to be reliably established.
Using your numbers argument from your Moses example, your criteria is that millions of people have believed in the existence of Moses. But your numbers argument is circular, since when other people cite the same rationale then you become one of the millions of people they cite. They cite you, you cite them, you all cite each other, and all you've really got is a group who believes something because everyone else in the group believes it. Someone somewhere has to actually know something based upon objective evidence, not just think so because everybody else thinks so. The numbers argument isn't valid.
It might be interesting to debate some of you on MY turf. I wonder how YOU would survive.
We could find out. Just tell me where, as long as the rules don't proscribe non-Christian viewpoints.
But PecosGeorge made me aware of the spiritual down side of continuing here as well.
You might think PecosGeorge is trying to help you, but notice he isn't participating in this discussion. And after reading his words were you inspired or discouraged? Think about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 3:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 2:38 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 281 of 305 (204687)
05-03-2005 2:32 PM


My Summary of the Thread
Faith's position is that the eyewitness accounts of the Bible are true because of the large number of eyewitnesses in the accounts. For example, Moses exists because of the many people in the Bible who witnessed him first hand, and because of the many people who have accepted the existence of Moses through the ages.
For most others here these views seem charmingly naive, or would were it not for Faith's zest for labeling those who don't share her views as idiots and nutcases. Unfortunately, Faith's inability to tolerate different views, her tendency to interpret disagreement as an attack on her own views, her resorts to insult and sarcasm, these are the most visible characteristics of this discussion.
Faith was never able to produce an objective set of criteria such as laid out by Clark in Message 268. In my opinion, Faith has lost the discussion badly both on the merits and by any standards of proper conduct.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 12:05 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 298 of 305 (204957)
05-04-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
05-04-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Prove it
Faith writes:
The real fact is that you have no evidence to indicate that Exodus even existed 3500 years ago, nor do you have any testimony which can be reliably identified as coming from anyone who was there at the time.
Sure I do. Moses himself, Joshua too. Again, testified to by the ages.
We've gone over this, Faith. You're repeating your original argument and ignoring the objections. Moses saw Joshua who saw Aaron who saw Jethro who saw Hur who saw Moses who saw Zipporah and they all saw each other. And in Gone with the Wind Scarlett saw Rhett who saw Melanie who saw Ashley and they all saw each other. What is there about the story of Moses that ties it to the real world?
That many people accept and have accepted the story of Moses as true is not evidence. Many people have believed many things over the course of history, and this includes the beliefs of religions other than Christianity. Your standards bear no resemblance to those of real history.
The criteria you have described, that many people of faith whom you trust have accepted the story as true, is a religious argument, not a historical one. No scholar of history would ever advance such arguments in support of a historical interpretation.
Your problem is that you think your religious beliefs have objective support, and what you have demonstrated over and over again by your own arguments is that they do not. Despite all your bluster about intellectualism, you accept the Biblical stories because of your faith in the truth of the Bible and also of your faith in the many people who have accepted the truth of the Bible over the centuries. And there's nothing wrong with this belief. But don't come into this site, which is dedicated to examining all claims as analytically and objectively as possible, demanding that we accept your arguments based upon your faith. Your arguments must stand or fall upon their merits, not upon your faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:54 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 300 of 305 (204972)
05-04-2005 1:27 PM


Faith Discussions
Many people have found discussions with Faith difficult. I think if we all better understand Faith's position that it will make discussions go much more smoothly. In this message I summarize Faith's position so that we may better understand where she is coming from.
I'm going to use a visual aid in this discussion that I'll refer to as Figure 1:
Figure 1. You're an Idiot!
  1. Opinions. Faith has lots of opinions. So many, in fact, that it would take the staff of 10 Libraries of Congress just to keep track of all of them. So many that it will make your head spin just figuring out which one's don't contradict each other. Don't like a Faith opinion? Well, you're an idiot, see figure 1.
  2. Assumptions. Faith has lots of assumptions. Faith has put lots of thought into her assumptions, and she likes them. Keep you cotton-picking hands off her assumptions. Don't touch. Consider them mandatory. "Mandatory assumptions" has a nice ring to it. Don't agree with a Faith assumption? See figure 1.
  3. Faith's tolerance. Faith is very tolerant. If you think you're a victim of Faith's tolerance then you are mistaken. Don't even think of complaining, you'll just get more "tolerance". Faith likes how tolerant she is just fine. Don't like how tolerant Faith is of your views? Too bad, see figure 1.
  4. Faith's views of geology. Faith has lots of new ideas about geology. There were floods and sediments and dinosaurs with birds on their noses and land animals leaving tracks while under water. Think her ideas are silly? Well, then, you're just wasting your time, see figure 1.
  5. Faith's views on the Bible. The Bible is absolutely true. Don't worry your little head questioning this truth. Why give yourself an ulcer? Faith is absolutely right in all things and never makes a mistake, and if you think otherwise, see figure 1.
With apologies to See Figure 1...
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 05-04-2005 01:29 PM

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 304 of 305 (205052)
05-04-2005 8:22 PM


A few facts about Islam...
Hmmm, this thread is still open. Well, in that case I'll just go back to a topic mentioned near the beginning of this thread that was never properly addressed because the pablum offered by Faith about the wonderful contributions of Christianity to civilization was answered only by the pablum offered by CheckMate.
One of Faith's evidences for the validity of Christianity was that it made modern science possible. My own view is that the correlation between religion and scientific advancement has never been established, but the evidence for Faith's view goes against her.
Within a couple hundred years after Christianity become the official religion of the Roman Empire, Rome fell and Europe entered the Dark Ages, from which it didn't emerge for a thousand years. Meanwhile, the Islamic Empire was prospering. Beginning around the 8th century A.D. Islamic intellectuals began formalizing the study of the natural world. They began by translating the works of the ancient Greeks into Arabic (these works were later made available to Europeans) and continued from there. The invention of paper was brought out of Asia and rapidly spread through the Islamic world. At a time when a European monastary would be fortunate to have 10 or 20 books, there were streets of booksellers in Islamic cities. Our decimal number system, eventually adopted by Europe and the rest of the world, was developed in the Islamic world, as was algebra.
It probably can't be reliably established why the now benighted Islamic world has settled into scientific, social and economic decadence, but my view is that it has a lot to do with fundamentalism. Most Moslems will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, and I'm sure this is true for the version of Islam they're following. But too much of the Islamic world has been taken over by a narrow fundamentalism that because they feel threatened by the outside world shutters itself and embraces violence and hatred.
I believe religious fundamentalism is dangerous in any form. Only our tradition of religious pluralism here in the states prevents the Christian fundamentalists from limiting religious freedom so they can promote their own brand of Christianity. Like the Islamic fundamentalists, they shutter themselves away creating their own colleges and even their own science. And that is why Faith's claim about Christianity's contributions to the Renaissance is so ironic, since if her funamentalist version of Christianity were to gain control of science we would again enter a Dark Ages with scientic views set by religious fiat instead of study and research.
--Percy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024