23 Sep 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd I've heard YE creationists who completely dismiss the scientific progress as being false, because "Bible says otherwise."
This is so true. I think that in our sciety, with very complex organizations and financial desicions, statistics (including probability) are a very important tool. With lacking understanding of the math behind it we will soon be on thin ice. (...and are already.)
But my point here is this:
I've never heard of anyone bragged that he cannot read.
I'v ...[text shortened]... completely dismiss the scientific progress as being false, because "Bible says otherwise."
What about evolution is incompatible with the Bible?
If God were to make creatures without the ability to adapt to changing conditions over time, then his planet would be barren in a relatively short period. Obviously, then, God has endowed his creatures with the means to evolve. But that's not really the issue, is it?
After all, evolution would still be a fact in a world without common ancestry. That is, if God created men, animals, insects, birds, plants, etc., all separately (i.e., having no common ancestor), scientists would be none the wiser; evolution would still be a fact.
Evolution doesn't threaten biblical truth, but the "Theory of Universal Ancestry" does. In light of this, it seems to me that any creationist/evolutionist debate, in order to be relevant, should revolve around origins.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasNote that people using the word 'evolution' are frequently actually referring to "The Theory of Evolution" which includes the idea of common ancestry.
What about evolution is incompatible with the Bible?
If God were to make creatures without the ability to adapt to changing conditions over time, then his planet would be barren in a relatively short period. Obviously, then, God has endowed his creatures with the means to evolve. But that's not really the issue, is it?
After all, evolution would still be a fact in a world without common ancestry. That is, if God created men, animals, insects, birds, plants, etc., all separately (i.e., having no common ancestor), scientists would be none the wiser; evolution would still be a fact.
Scientists would be wiser. It is quite obvious from the current characteristics and geographical locations of life forms, and also from the fosil record that common ancestry is a fact - or God went to a lot of trouble to make it look like a fact. There is no reasonable alternative explanation (eg that it is a sensible way for God to make the animals) as you imply.
Evolution doesn't threaten biblical truth, but the "Theory of Universal Ancestry" does. In light of this, it seems to me that any creationist/evolutionist debate, in order to be relevant, should revolve around origins.
The Theory of Evolution includes the concept of common ancestry, and the basic ideas of evolution provide a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence. That threatens 'biblical truth' because one of 'biblical truths' greatest strengths is an argument from incredulity.
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KDo I really need to? I have seen on these forums countless creationists trying to prove that evolution is impossible, because they correctly believe that if there is a reasonable non-supernatural explanation for a phenomena, then their supernatural explanation will be destroyed. It is human nature to take the parsimonious explanation. A supernatural explanation is often, to the less thoughtful, the most parsimonious explanation. The 'argument for design' is at its heart a claim of 'the most parsimonious explanation for the complexity I see is that an intelligent agent designed it'. That is why it is so important for people trying to use that argument to claim 'irreducible complexity' or in other words, 'no more parsimonious explanation exists'.
Explain.
Much of the story of genesis is again, an attempt to provide an explanation for various phenomena, including the existence of the world and the existence of evil. Many people accept it as fact simply because they do not have any alternative that appears to them to be more parsimonious. But even those who hold onto it for psychological reasons recognize the threat of alternative explanations and will go to great lengths to try to discredit them or prove them impossible.
[edit]
In case it wasn't clear in my other post, the 'biblical truths' I was referring to was specifically the biblical version of the origin of life as referred to by epiphinehas, and my statements were meant to be confined to that subject.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree mostly. I dispute that all biblical truths are arguments from incredulity. Sure, the Genesis myth is a good example: Christians accepted it as true so long as all other alternative explanations for the development of life were incredulous. Other biblical truths are not of that nature; some parts are clearly to be interpreted as fables or allegories. The 'true' interpretation of such passages need not have anything to do with the argument from incredulity.
Do I really need to? I have seen on these forums countless creationists trying to prove that evolution is impossible, because they correctly believe that if there is a reasonable non-supernatural explanation for a phenomena, then their supernatural explanation will be destroyed. It is human nature to take the parsimonious explanation. A supernatural expla ...[text shortened]... erred to by epiphinehas, and my statements were meant to be confined to that subject.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI wasn't really intending to discredit the whole Bible, but was rather responding to epiphinehas' "Evolution doesn't threaten biblical truth, but the 'Theory of Universal Ancestry' does."
I agree mostly. I dispute that all biblical truths are arguments from incredulity. Sure, the Genesis myth is a good example: Christians accepted it as true so long as all other alternative explanations for the development of life were incredulous. Other biblical truths are not of that nature; some parts are clearly to be interpreted as fables or alle ...[text shortened]... terpretation of such passages need not have anything to do with the argument from incredulity.
I realized later that I appeared to be over generalizing which would certainly be wrong.
I would agree with you that interpretation is critical to any discussion of the 'truth value' of Biblical text. In my opinion, a claim that The Bible is 100% true, suffers from the problem that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and it is impossible for every interpretation to be true.
But what is really meant by 'Biblical Truth'? I think anyone would have to agree that some verses in the Bible are true. I would think that someone would say 'Biblical Truth' when they want to express the opinion that a verse is necessarily true because it is contained in the Bible (and thus is the Word of God).
25 Sep 08
But what is really meant by 'Biblical Truth'? I think anyone would have to agree that some verses in the Bible are true. I would think that someone would say 'Biblical Truth' when they want to express the opinion that a verse is necessarily true because it is contained in the Bible (and thus is the Word of God).[/b]Can you elaborate on which verses in the bible are true? And on what basis?
28 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by aanepadeAt least 50%, I'd have said. (100% if you believe it)
Can you elaborate on which verses in the bible are true? And on what basis?
50% on the basis that the bible is our story, for the most part, showing all aspects of humanity, and touching some deep realities, however you look at it.
edit: probably more, as I think about it. The control bits are more on the 'outside the bible' social interactions, eg 'pope is infallable','world is x years old' etc etc.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Sep 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandDid you arrive at this judgement after serious biblical study, consulting various volumes of biblical criticism? Or is this '50%' just a hunch?
At least 50%, I'd have said. (100% if you believe it)
50% on the basis that the bible is our story, for the most part, showing all aspects of humanity, and touching some deep realities, however you look at it.
28 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by aanepadeI cannot think of any right now, but I am sure that there are some which are simple statements of truth. eg if it says the Temple is in Jerusalem, then that would be true.
Can you elaborate on which verses in the bible are true? And on what basis?
I disagree with snowinscotland about how much of the Bible is true. As an atheist I strongly suspect that over 90% is not true as a very large proportion purports to be reporting on the activities of God. I also think that a large proportion of the historical side of it is inaccurate, but whether one would call that 'false' is debatable.
Maybe 'factual' or 'non-factual' would be better terms when describing most of the Bible.