"Maybe someone can give me an explanation?" --As a Bible Thumping YEC, I'd like to give some input. Basically if you were to argue with myself, your argument would be greatly flawed. Simply on the basis that I have never found the need to resort to any argument that requires a scientific mind-set. accept ofcourse for the bits and pieces that make the Christian faith a faith such as the ressurection, the universal creation, Noahs Boat (not noahs flood, but his boat that was in the flood requires a biblical based faith), ect. Basically, the way I look at it, is an ancient document that you compair and contrast with todays scientific observations and I myself find that it is amazingly compatable and accurate. Pretty much, its that the bible isn't to complement science, but science is to complement the bible. Hope this helps.
"This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth?" --The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input.
"Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations." --Thats my 'opinion'.
"Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?" --Something that is in the process of explination is hardly untennable on the basis of coming to the conclusion of being unable to explain something that has not been attempted. (I'm in the process of explaining, basically, I am attempting an explination that mainstream geology has gone through for many years).
"What is wrong with using the scientific method on the bible, as an attempt to establish its "factual" accuracy. It could be done, although I doubt you would like the results. My point is, you require a level of "proof" from science that you don't require from the bible. This is hypocritical." --Sure, apply the scientific method to the bible, that is perfectly reasonable. Though what I mean when I say "The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input", is that like I said, should be used when science can apply a test. For example, lets say we wan't to test the flood, lets just say we find it comes out that it is a plausable event (lets just say for the sake of example, no need for a disagreement, just follow me on this) well this was tested using the scientific method, ok. Though the bible says that God caused all this, now where is the scientific method going to go? It cannot apply a test for this. This logic should be followed throughout any biblical test.
"Why not have pure, baseless, faith in Odin & blow God out? There's no evidence for either, so I'm questioning the mental integrity of someone who believes something without reason, & disbelieves something else which has as much basis in fact as what they believe." --We will always be bumping into walls on this one, because lets just say someone does believe out of baseless faith, well Christians will live off of that faith, and out of that faith, whether science explains it as a bunch of chemical reactions and what-not, it gives them that strengthening feeling of being a christian. Some on the boards may know what I am talking about. My point is, is that it isn't technically 'baseless faith' that most Christians are going to live by, theres always going to be some type of basis for that faith. As for myself, I believe the bible says:
2 Peter 3 4 "And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." --So as the bible in a quite apparently valid interpretation, shows a to come uniformitarian concept and a deistic belief, I think I can take it should be evident by the next verse:
"5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" --Odly, this seems to imply that the bible may cooperate with an old universe, though a young Earth, hmmmmm...
"How, then, can you/anyone attempt to maintain "factual" biblical integrity when a rigorous method is being applied to science, & people deny that science in favour of faith, with no sound basis whatsoever? Do you not find it hypocritical that in every other aspect of christians (or any other religion) lives they require evidence?" --Many go on love and faith alone, though I find it fascinating to take a deep breath of the knowledge and 'intelligent design' of his universe and the systems he set to work to govern its properties.
"For example, you don't have "faith" that crossing a busy road with your fingers in your ears & your eyes shut will get you safely to the other side, because you have evidence that heavy objects kill when they hit you at speed.
You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim." --Yes, but of course, for someone to do that, or not to do it, they must either have faith in their reasoning (I think we can agree on this reasoning as valid!), or have faith that this reasoning is either flawed, or have faith in luck or chance.
"You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim." --A bit different scenarios, because we can only gather so much information on origins, even more of a descrepancy because it is a historical event, not a current happening, unlike the criminal conviction.
"So, it seems hypocritical to me that this sound mental attitude, which you use in every other aspect of your life should be suspended because it is inconvenient to a notion of a factually baseless God.
That said, what method would you apply universally to everything to determine its likelyhood, if it isn't the scientific method or something like it? To apply such a method to something, & not something else, is by definition, hypocritical. " --See my first comment, I think I explain my reasoning behind this question.
"Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?" --This is not exactly true, as I explained above, I explained what should and should not apply the scientific method. You would be correct, however, that pure faith events, concepts, or anything of the like shouldn't be decided by applying the scientific method, simply because it is not applicable on scientific grounds.
"Whether it is scienctific deciding how you cross the road is irrelevent. The scientific method is designed to best get at the most likely explanation." --Yes, though this 'most likely explination' should take into account any assumptions made to come to the conclusion.
"This is exactly what we do when we try to decide what gossip to believe, or what newspaper article to believe. You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science? Nonsense, you apply a similar rationale to every non-religious decision you make." --For the 'You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science', Of course not.
"What, intellectually, allows you to suspend this rationale, in the light that you use an evidence as a determinant for decision making in other areas of life?" --See above, if you may need more clarity, don't hesitate.
"Well, sure, it can show customs and cultural attitudes of the time, but this is not the same as being a record of actual events." --The bible is used for the origin of Abraham's decendents, the bible doesn't exactly address much other cultural origins so in the first place, I don't know what else it would be used for. Second, they of course would not wan't to touch up on many other religious, let alone many other events given in the old-testament, mostly because it is all God ordained.
"Then again how long was Jesus up on the cross for? A few hours wasn`t it?
And yet crucifiction was a supposedly agonising death that took several days..." --The bodies were taken down because of the passover, and it would have been denouncing.
"And didn`t he allegedly crawl up the curtain immediately after they held a sponge with vinegar on it under his nose? Something that should have revived him?" --Jesus didn't crawl up a curtain.
"I think there are enough ambiguities surrounding his putative death to make any discussion on his rising from the grave highly speculative..." --I find it well documented, heck, 4 books are written at the time on the event.
"OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example." --Allright then.
"Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of “truth” finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?" --Hm, I seem to not be fully understanding what you are implying, possibly an example on your inquisition?
"Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions." --Yes, but science cannot apply to something that it cannot use within the boudaries of logic or anything you can test, or experiment on.
"If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?" --This is where faith stands, it is a subjective belief given to the wordly order, it is out of the realm of science or experimentation, or even a test of existance. There is no direct evidence of pink fairies or God, yes. What there is, however, is indirect evidence, which is where I give God the glory.
"You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?" --Slightly reasonable in a scence, though seemingly forgetting something, see above.
"Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?" --I give the credit of existance of the universe and everything in it, It is basically my amazment at its workings, not to mention the book that I believe he inspired to document earth history, I find it compatable with observation. As the pink fairy does not have this same credibility, unless ofcourse you would like to apply Godly attributes to the pink fairy and make up your own God or something of that nature.
"I'm not sure why this is relevant." --The statement addressed history, and seeminly implied that the bible is not reliable for accurate historical events, so I pointed this out.
"Cultural "origins"? I wasn't talking about the "origins" of culture or customs." --Neither was I, I was addressing origins of the tribe/race itself.
"If you read the Bible, you get a pretty good idea of the culture and customs of the time" --Right.
"For example, you learn that slavery was in practice, and that women were considered chattel." --The problem with this notion, is that it implies that slavery is horrible. But why is it horrible, when you think of slavery you tend to think of the whips and the lashes and the different harsh treatments. This is condemned in the bible to 'all' people, and so, a 'slave', is more accuratly a 'servant' a more proper in-context biblical translation. Basically being a servant was like being a child with responsibilities in todays american culture. --As for women, its a bit analogous to the above. Women are at a bit of a lower level than men, after all, who was it who picked the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil first?
"Huh, what are you talking about? I don't understand." --The separation of church and state in the history books. This is probably why they omit, say, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or mention of the the exile of Moses without the word 'myth' used in the same sentance.
"Now call me Mr Fussy if you must, but this doesn't seem to condemn harsh treatment at all.
What you must bear in mind is that "slavery" or servitude in the bible covered a wide range of situations: there are several contexts where it is clearly meant in an oppressive sense, and it is often referred to in contexts where the instution of slavery itself (not just the treatment of slaves) is seen as undesirable." --I found this Q&A site a good reference: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html
"The translation "servant" is not more proper - rather it requires careful reading to separate contexts where servant or slave may be better, and where other terms - bondsman, bondservant, etc - may be substituted." --Yes this was a bit of what I was pointing out.
"One thing we can be sure of: if the Hebrews of biblical times were remotely like the people of the modern world they would have taken all too many opportunities to abuse the institution of the law to their own advantage regardless of the suffering of others." --Yes, its a good thing that were still not in the old-testament.
"I doubt being a slave in ancient Judea can be compared to being a modern american child - pity the children if it can." --It was a poor analogy, I know, excuse me.
"I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!
"I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!" --I may have worded it incorrectly a bit, the men are given more responsibilities than the woman, and the women seemingly are not allowed to some things, such as be a preist or paster. Were living in the new testament covenant, why not go by its expectations.