Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
(KJV comes to mind, published, what, seven years after the first English dictionary)?

There was a long programme on British TV Last night about the development of the English language - I caught literally the Last two minutes, which was all about the King James Bible (I'm presuming [dangerously] that's what you mean by KJV).

Anyway, apparently the language in it was already 80 years out of date (e.g. used 'thou' instead of 'you' even though no-one said 'thou' anymore) - a deliberate attempt to make it sound more impressive. "Thou shalt not steal" sounds much better than "Oi, don't pinch stuff" or "Don't steal". But it just goes to show that the attempt was made to get a message across, not to make a direct translation of "God's words". That's very important if you're trying to take it all literally.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb."

Depending on your definition of open mind. It seems nowadays that it means "Accept everybody and everything without any sort of value judgment." As long as it means "Keep your eyes open and your brain engaged," I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, and most people who operate solely on blind faith aren't well informed about much of anything, including their faith.

That first definition would be akin to blindly accept things on faith (ie: accept the actions others just because it is PC), instead of an actual open mind.

No offense intended, but your reasons for accepting Christianity and the Bible (given earlier) seem more like blind faith to me than any logical reasoning.

[Krsqk]

Despite the expansion/morphing of language, the same words communicate something very close to the same thing they did in the past. There are words in the Bible which are no longer in common usage, but it's not difficult to find them. Thee's and thou's are used in writing for a good while after the KJV; comparing formal 1611 English and current slang "ain't" exactly a good comparison.

As for translating from Greek/Hebrew, there are difficulties involved translating. That said, the difficulties are not insurmountable, or no one would translate anything. At least those two Languages had not been popularly spoken for quite some time, so their "meaning creep" should have been very limited, at the least. They had been studied throughout the Middle Ages, though, in the classic literature, so denotation/connotation were determinable.

RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had.

[Krsqk]

Well, given that all y'all literal interpreters don't agree on exactly which literal interpretation is "right", why should we'uns assume that there is a single correct "literal" interpretation?

There's a lot in your post, but I think this is the core of it. First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.

[Solar]

I believe the bible cannot be interpreted literally, and I'll tell you why. Here's just one of my favorite examples:

'And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.' Joshua 10:13 (King James Version)

What science tells us in the 21st century that people didn't believe when the book of Joshua was written, is that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The sun never "goes down", the earth just rotates until the sun is on the other side of it. Oh, the sun DOES move, along with the rest of the galaxy, but the effect of the sun "standing still" would be very different from the effect described in this passage.

So, if you want to interpret the bible as God's literal, direct words, there are several possibilities I can think of:

1. God, who created everything that exists, including the sun and the earth, is somehow ignorant of, or has forgotten, the mechanisms of celestial bodies in his universe.

2. God is purposefully trying to deceive the readers of his book, for some unknown purpose.

3. The sun USED to revolve around the earth, but at some point in the Last several thousand years God decided to quietly change the way that the universe works, for some unknown purpose.

Those possibilities do not seem very likely to me. It seems much more likely to me that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, word for word.

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

This is not meant as an attack on your religion as a whole. Just because the bible isn't literal doesn't, in my opinion, necessarily make it completely invalid. I grew up in the christian church, and I used to believe as you do, so I'm not unsympathetic to you position.

Solar

[Solar]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

E. Albright

Thanks for the input, E. I'm pretty starved for complex conversation myself.

The willingness to base one's beliefs on emotions rather than intellect is something in human culture that bugs me to no end. The problem I have with other people's beliefs is not what they believe, but why they believe what they do. I've talked to athiests who say that God doesn't exist because if he did, he wouldn't let babies die, and there would no be so much 'evil' in the world (this is quite a 'logic leap' IMO). Some of them go on to say that if God does exist, he's a sadistic baby killer (another 'logic leap') and they'd spit in his face if they had the chance (to each his own. If I had good reason to believe there was a sadistic, baby-killing god, I'd rather kiss up to him than burn in fiery torment forever and ever and ever. But I digress.)

On the other hand, I�ve talked to christians who say that there must be a God, because there is no morality without a divine being. And they don't have anything to say in the face of mountains of (IMO) good evidence to the contrary.

In both cases they believe because they are uncomfortable with the implications of not believing in it. This isn't just a religious issue, either. I have a friend who says that human cloning is flat out impossible, and never in a million years will we EVER be able to clone a human being. Argue with him long enough and he�ll freely admit that he has no logical basis for his belief, but he believes it nonetheless. I think he�s really just extremely uncomfortable with the concept of human cloning (and it is a rather disturbing prospect).

I�m not saying that emotions are harmful or don�t have a purpose (I gave up on being a vulcan years ago ). I just think that basing beliefs and making decisions based primarily on emotion is very unwise. People are doing themselves a favor if they face their fears and realize that discomfort is not a stable foundation for a belief system (again, as always, IMHO).

Solar

[Krsqk]

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

You seem to have quite the grasp of the doctrine of inspiration, yet you can't reconcile this passage with it? The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset." Can you find anyone who doesn't understand those verses? The Bible doesn't purport to give detailed scientific descriptions of the events contained therein; to fuss over a frame of reference is nitpicking. (Although, several children in our school could use a little more nitpicking lately--yet another outbreak of lice. )

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had.

The theory of evolution is not some magical answer key that can answer anything.

It is an entirely different process. I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for. I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution. This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

[jimbob]

I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for.

Errr... not to speak for all biologists or anything, but has anyone been reading my Posts? To reiterate in brief, the complexity issue doesn't favor chance.

I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution.

Yeah, except the terms "observational gravity" and "theory of gravity" can be linked, whereas "theory of evolution" is not linked to any term "observational evolution".
We can let go of a small object and see it 'drop' towards the large object everyday, and we call the phenomenon gravity - no doubt about our observation (unless you're a deconstructionist )
However, the observed phenomenon for evolution is speciation.
That is to say, we see species everyday. But evolution is a theory attempting to explain where those species came from. Thus we never see evolution. To claim that we see species proves evolution is circular reasoning at its roundest!

This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

I'm still wondering which of the experiments; the primordial soup in an electrified mason jar, or the punctuated equilibrium/salted fossil record is the successful experimentation everyone keeps mentioning.

nighty-night
jimbob

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Solar:
Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it.
Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit.
As human beings, what does our "reality" consist of? The input received by our senses, our brain's interpretation of that input, and memories of past input and interpretation (experience). Based on observation, we make assumptions about the nature of the universe. We have to, otherwise we couldn't function. [...]

I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

Anyway, I digress. Yeah. Admissions of ignorance are out of style. And then some.

E. Albright