Thirith on 19/1/2007 at 19:30
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
If it's not literal, then it's annoyingly vague; presumably, my assumption that something which can be interpreted in so many widely different ways has little value as a lifeguide, is an incorrect assumption?
You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with your assumption here. As far as I'm concerned, any valuable, valid lifeguide will be immensely complex, and as I don't believe that human existence and especially ethics can be accounted for in simple yes/no statements, the 'fuzzy logic' of metaphor is necessary. There is a number of simple rules (although even those are open to interpretation to a certain extent), and these are like a vastly simplified approximation of how one could lead one's life, but once you go beyond these rules the text is, and must be, as rich and difficult and frustrating as life and ethics are. Also, since we have to *interpret* in order to get at the text's meaning, we are actively involved as intellectual, ethical beings. If we choose to interpret the bible in one way or another, that is *our* responsibility. Anyone who says "The bible made me do it" is both stupid and wrong.
However, I'd also say that for instance the guy who bombs an abortion clinic is misreading the simplest, most central tenets, as are the guys who believe it's a good idea to crucify a homosexual. These people don't fail because their interpretation differs from mine. They fail at understanding the most basic, clearest rules given in the bible as given by the guy the religion is based on. They're like people claiming to be theoretical phycisists who have no idea of Einstein's theory of relativity. They're like doctors who have no idea where the heart is in the human body or what its function is.
fett on 19/1/2007 at 20:43
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
If it's not literal, then it's annoyingly vague; presumably, my assumption that something which can be interpreted in so many widely different ways has little value as a lifeguide, is an incorrect assumption?
But Stronts - any book written in another culture and language is complicated if you've only given the culture and language a cursory examination - not just the Bible. Granted - if God really wrote it, why isn't it easier to understand? I could go on for pages defending the use of the language and the time of compliation, etc. (outside of the scope of this discussion however). The sections you think are 'vague' are intentionally so (poetry, creation account, apocalyptic and prophetic writings) or written that way so that symbols would survive beyond that particular language and culture. Believe me - what is vague to you as a Westerner, makes a lot more sense to someone in Pakistan or even Greece or Turkey, if they care to actually study the text. The MAIN problem with the Bible is that people approach it either casually, as if it were a novel, or with rigid literalness like it's an encyclopedia. The fact is that it is both of those and some other things are well - it's a collection of writings, some intended literally (the history, legal writings, gospels), some are allegorical (poetry), and some are symbolic (prophecy).
Again - you can't put your modern-western expectations on it (or any ancient writing for that matter), then complain that it doesn't read like the newspaper or a John Grisham novel. It continually confounds me that even scholars will approach ancient writings very carefully with intense regard for it's origins, but will not apply the same caution to the Bible - it smacks of bias, and quite frankly, personal immaturity. You miss out on an truly amazing piece of literature simply because you disagree with it's philosophy. What if we approached every book that way? I don't understand why people can't set belief aside and examine the book in it's context.
Quote:
Fett (and I do enjoy reading your posts on this subject btw) - what, then, is the over-riding
purpose (or purposes, if we're contrasting Old and New Testaments) of the Bible?
I don't think they're to be contrasted. The OT looks forward to the salvation of man through a Messiah who will be born a Jew through the house of Abraham and David (therefore it spends 90% of it's time dealing with the nation from whom this Messiah will come and how they are supernaturally preserved in the face of constant threat). The NT quickly tells the story of this man, then begins expounding on the laws God gave in the OT to protect said nation and make them 'separate' from the surrounding cultures - and how Messiah embodies this law.
The overriding purpose therefore being exactly what John says in his account of the life of Jesus, "That you may believe that Jesus is the Christos(Messiah), the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." In other words - to reconcile God to man and to make it clear that unlike other world religions, this 'god' initiated that process, rather than expecting man to 'find god'. Whether there is any truth to this is beside the point however. Oddly, the bible never claims to:
*tell people how to live
*make bad people good
*explain the history or origins of man
*solve all the riddles of the universe
Yet, that's what many atheists attack it for not doing, and christians know better than to take that bait.
Nicker on 19/1/2007 at 21:09
Quote Posted by paloalto
Given the relatively narrow parameters that life can exist in,carbon based life that is, and the number of combinations of chemicals,peptides,amino acids etc that had to have taken place it is astronomical.
Even a situation where you have bacteria in a petri dish and a dripper that is gradually changing the ph heading toward a ph that would kill them all,the odds of a mutation that would produce bacteria that could stand higher ph would be high given the possible combination of mutations their could be.
The "random combination" argument presumes there are no natural mechanisms to assist in the development of organic life. The universe has an underlying, cohesive order and seems to encourage increased complexity. Sub atomic particles don't become atoms or atoms molecules by random occurence but as a reflection of that order.
Adaptation (which you are describing) is a bit of a misnomer as it suggests tinkering with a design to improve its performance in given conditions. Mutation does not occur in response to changes in the environment it merely produces variants in an organism which may prove adaptive to a change in environment or allow new niches to be exploited.
the_grip on 23/1/2007 at 15:15
As a faithful (and hopefully peaceful) member of the "other side" (i.e. Christians, although i'm Catholic, not Evangelical Fundamentalist), i'd like to offer a few words.
Quote:
If it's not literal, then it's annoyingly vague; presumably, my assumption that something which can be interpreted in so many widely different ways has little value as a lifeguide, is an incorrect assumption?
STD (i think you don't mind that acronym, correct?), you are making the same mistake that the "Young Earth Creationists" do. The majority of the Bible was written prior to the time when our idea of "history" and what that entails had taken shape. The writer(s) of Genesis didn't think in terms of an absolute, reporter/scholar style view of history, and each one carries the biases and viewpoints of the author(s). They were concerned with communicating certain messages and, while the Bible is more pseudo-historically-minded than most ancient literature, the authors didn't intend to give a literal account of all the details. Indeed, the first two chapters of Genesis are written in a highly symbolic fashion - intended to give a picture of an ordered creation that was formed by God and that existed (and can potentially exist again) in harmony.
(on a side note, i do like to ask Young Earth Creationists how day and night could be formed prior to the sun and the moon among other things - like how did vegetation appear before the sun?)
Anyways, as has been mentioned, the staunch athiest has the same makeup as the staunch fundamentalist, and neither side really addresses the issue accurately because of the biases each side brings. Instead, i always find it much more enlightening and refreshing to take a few steps back and be a little bit more humble about the topic. i don't presume to defend God in every jot and tiddle (nor do i feel the need to), and, at the same time, i don't presume that i could disprove Him, either.
Thus when i see a title like "The God Delusion" (which i have not yet read but have heard quite a bit about), i tend to roll my eyes. i'm sure i'll read it at some point, but i know it will be the same tired old arguments dragged out of the closet and rehashed with a modern face (and, to be fair, i avoid books from "the other side" that are written in the same spirit).
As i look at things, Christianity by and large has done much to benefit society. Humanitarian aid finds huge support from Christians, Christians in history have been outspoken advocates for justice, Christians have preserved philosophy and science to a large degree in history, etc. It is true that there have been and are some quacks out there, but that is the same for human beings of any category.
In the end, i don't get why people get so angry on either side. Most of the time the issue doesn't revolve around matters of faith - it revolves around broader demographic issues.
Lastly, fett, i enjoy reading your posts as well. You have quite a bit of insight, at least to me.
Just my two cents,
the_grip
Aerothorn on 23/1/2007 at 15:37
Quote Posted by fett
Stronts - have you ever READ the bible?
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Enough of it
You mean you've spent 16 pages making arguments against a book that you haven't even finished?
My god, man, educate yourself. Whether or not you think it's a load of baloney is irrelevant - you have to have read the whole damn thing to be able to intelligently discuss it in as fine a detail as you seem to desire. I hated Siddhartha, but I still had to read it before I could write the paper.
Okay, I didn't write the paper and I got a C in the class, but that's not the point.
I also must say that fett's post on this page have been very enlightening, and I intend to go back and find all his other ones in this damn topic.
And finally, as noted by the_grip and...well, pretty much everyone else, the whole religeon = war and strife thing is simply ignorant, and good things have been done in the name of Christianity, or any other major faith you care to point to. Some friends of mine - Christian and non-Christian - go to Tiajuana every year to build houses for the impoverished. It's funded by a mission. Seattle's main homeless shelter is funded by a mission.
SD on 23/1/2007 at 16:58
Quote Posted by the_grip
STD (i think you don't mind that acronym, correct?), you are making the same mistake that the "Young Earth Creationists" do. The majority of the Bible was written prior to the time when our idea of "history" and what that entails had taken shape. The writer(s) of Genesis didn't think in terms of an absolute, reporter/scholar style view of history, and each one carries the biases and viewpoints of the author(s).
Yeah, but you see, I was going by the word of the people who claim that the Bible is the unfettered word of God.
Quote:
Anyways, as has been mentioned, the staunch athiest has the same makeup as the staunch fundamentalist
I don't think that's quite true, but we've aleady discussed that earlier in the thread.
Quote:
Thus when i see a title like "The God Delusion" (which i have not yet read but have heard quite a bit about), i tend to roll my eyes. i'm sure i'll read it at some point, but i know it will be the same tired old arguments dragged out of the closet and rehashed with a modern face (and, to be fair, i avoid books from "the other side" that are written in the same spirit)
The thing is, you may think them "tired old arguments", but a book like this has never actually been written before. Scientists have previously had the good grace to keep out of religion, and maybe would have continued to do so had religion not persistently blurred the lines between the two.
I'd even go so far as to describe
The God Delusion as "the atheist bible". It's a shame you'll never read it because whether you agree with it or not, it's a thought-provoking tome.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
You mean you've spent 16 pages making arguments against a book that you haven't even finished?
Actually no, Aerothorn. Dawkins' book is about
God, and the scientific treatment of God - not the Bible.
In fact, if the last few pages of this thread have taught me anything, it's that Dawkins was indeed wise not to encroach too far onto the topic of the Bible! That's one can of worms where anyone who hasn't studied the texts for years is hopelessly out of their depth.
paloalto on 23/1/2007 at 16:59
Dawkins can posture all he wants that he is being rational and logical.It helps of course that he wears the hat of a scientist,but since you cannot prove that God does not exist versus simply not having enough information , in order to go past the" I don't know line "he must step over the line into an irrational and illogocal bielief that God does not exist.Since you cannot come up with an experiment to prove your hypothesis it is a pointless argument.And the tone of his argument says that he does not bieleve in God.Any scientist who takes the position that God does not exist is not himself being true to scientific methodology.
Tiamat on 23/1/2007 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
You mean you've spent 16 pages making arguments against a book that you haven't even finished?
I hated Siddhartha, but I still had to read it before I could write the paper.
Not really... spark notes for the win!
Or something like that.
Also, fett's posts are pretty damned awesome. It's good to see reason in a religious debate.
Quote Posted by paloalto
Any scientist who takes the position that God does not exist is not himself being true to the scientic methodology.
Wait, what? Extrapolating a theory from the most probable of a series of explanations doesn't go against the scientific method. And before you read too much into that statement, from a purely scientific/evolutionary point of view it
is the most probable. That doesn't mean it's right - a coin can land heads-up two dozen times, even if it's not very probable - but it still does follow correct methodology.
Oh, hey, I've come out of hiding again. Huh.
the_grip on 23/1/2007 at 17:04
Thanks STD for the reply.
Quote:
Yeah, but you see, I was going by the word of the people who claim that the Bible is the unfettered word of God.
Don't get me wrong, i do think the Bible is God's revelation to man (part of the Catholic faith). However, Evangelical Fundies have largely hijacked what that means and turned it instead into a new, modern reactionary understanding that touches historical understanding of the Bible in some parts but creates large disconnects with historic Christianity in others.
What that long-windedly means is that i do believe the Bible is God's revelation to man, but not in the fundie-literalist way that is often espoused in the West by modern evangelicals.
Quote:
It's a shame you'll never read it because whether you agree with it or not, it's a thought-provoking tome.
i definitely do want to read it - i've got a reading list a mile long, but i hope to get to it... if nothing else, it is popular, and it's nice to know what popular culture is paying attention to.
Since i have not read the book, i can't comment on its contents, but my eyes tend to glaze over when anyone claims to be able to prove or disprove God.
Yours,
the_grip
