Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.

The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.

The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.

I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.

Hordini wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.

The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.

I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.

Oh, it's not surprising a primitive desert-dwelling tribe, by itself, can't distinguish between bats and birds. It does break suspension of disbelief a bit when you realise that Leviticus, etc. are apparently the direct word of God, who probably ought to be able to tell the difference.

Still doesn't address Hebrew cosmology, of course, which is so gleefully wrong that it makes a geocentric model (complete with luminoferous aether) look good.

Laughing Man wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.

The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.

I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.

Oh, it's not surprising a primitive desert-dwelling tribe, by itself, can't distinguish between bats and birds. It does break suspension of disbelief a bit when you realise that Leviticus, etc. are apparently the direct word of God, who probably ought to be able to tell the difference.

Still doesn't address Hebrew cosmology, of course, which is so gleefully wrong that it makes a geocentric model (complete with luminoferous aether) look good.

Why do you assume that God would use the same classification system that humans use anyway? The point of that part of Leviticus is what animals are unclean, and it's put into terms that someone who might know very little about science or whatever else could understand. Just because the information is put into simple terms doesn't mean or even imply that God couldn't tell the difference.

As to the Hebrew cosmology, I suppose it could possibly still be accurate, perhaps there's a firmament at the edge of the universe or something? I don't know. I think the bigger problem is trying to read everything completely literally when language that could be metaphorical is often used. I guess my answer to the picture you showed of Hebrew cosmology would be that the interpretation is too literal.

Why do you assume that God would use the same classification system that humans use anyway? The point of that part of Leviticus is what animals are unclean, and it's put into terms that someone who might know very little about science or whatever else could understand. Just because the information is put into simple terms doesn't mean or even imply that God couldn't tell the difference.

The phrase "need to know information" comes to mind

The Bibles long enough as it is without trying to intricately explain the universe down to the details. Besides, that would put quantum physicists out of work

Hebrew cosmology is not directly linked to the Torah. The Bible doesn't really cover all that much as far as how the Jewish people thought the universe was structured. Most of the beliefs held by jews at the time in regards to cosmology were the same as those of other groups in the middle east.

Hordini wrote:As to the Hebrew cosmology, I suppose it could possibly still be accurate, perhaps there's a firmament at the edge of the universe or something? I don't know. I think the bigger problem is trying to read everything completely literally when language that could be metaphorical is often used. I guess my answer to the picture you showed of Hebrew cosmology would be that the interpretation is too literal.

It's also what pretty much the entire region believed at the time. The Sumerians, for instance, had a world with a roof made of tin, and the Egyptians had a few different models over time, including a rather interesting one where the roof was the Goddess Nut. The Greeks had a similar worldview until around 1000 BC, IIRC, eventually shifting back to a geocentric model around 100 BC when the Romans kicked their asses. The Hindus were the closest to being right, although their spherical earth (7000 kilometers in diameter, amusingly) was encased in a metal heaven. Not too much cultural pollution there, as the Vedic tradition was a bit more geographically remote compared to Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, and the Zoroastrian tradition. Really, it's rather remarkable that the belief system of a small desert tribe like the Hebrews managed to become one of the world's dominant mythologies.

There's a couple pretty good dissections of the topic online, this one being a bit more accessable to your average layman, and this one digging deep into contemporary interviews with Rabbis and a nice dissection of ancient Hebrew for a great look at what the ancient Israelites actually believed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Hebrew cosmology is not directly linked to the Torah. The Bible doesn't really cover all that much as far as how the Jewish people thought the universe was structured. Most of the beliefs held by jews at the time in regards to cosmology were the same as those of other groups in the middle east.

While Genesis doesn't paint an entirely explicit picture, references to the vaults of heaven, the pillars of heaven, the waters above and below, Sheol, etc. are found throughout the Torah. Most of it fails to make much sense unless read in the context of Hebrew cosmology.

It's also what pretty much the entire region believed at the time.

I don't understand the relevance. Cosmology was of little interest to Hebrew religious faith (hence it's near absolute absence from the Torah). About the only part of it that religiously mattered was "There's the universe. God made it."

Don't confuse the cosmology with religious belief. Just because a group believed in something doesn't mean it was a tenant of other beliefs they held. Hebrew religion was and still is more concerned with proper living than anything else.

While Genesis doesn't paint an entirely explicit picture, references to the vaults of heaven, the pillars of heaven, the waters above and below, Sheol, etc. are found throughout the Torah. Most of it fails to make much sense unless read in the context of Hebrew cosmology.

Were these of religious significance, or is their presence merely explained by that Jews believed in this structure of the universe? Cosmology is not synonymous with religion in this case. If it really mattered it would have had a larger presence in the Torah than passing reference.

Really, it's rather remarkable that the belief system of a small desert tribe like the Hebrews managed to become one of the world's dominant mythologies.

Blame the Roman Empire, it's collapse, a very charismatic man named Jesus, and early Christian ingenuity

LordofHats wrote:I don't understand the relevance. Cosmology was of little interest to Hebrew religious faith (hence it's near absolute absence from the Torah). About the only part of it that religiously mattered was "There's the universe. God made it."

Don't confuse the cosmology with religious belief. Just because a group believed in something doesn't mean it was a tenant of other beliefs they held. Hebrew religion was and still is more concerned with proper living than anything else.

It was quite important to the early Hebrews, it's just that, unlike their creation myths and lineage, they shared a cosmology with other local tribes, and declined to mention its existence as it was considered common knowledge. One only has to look at Psalms and Deuteronomy to find dozens of references to classical Hebrew cosmology. Proper living is, of course, very important to any religion, but it doesn't completely invalidate their creation myths. Mind you, "proper living" has evolved considerably since the Torah was codified, with a hell of a lot less emphasis put on most of Leviticus's commandments (see: stoning gays, forcing women to marry their rapists, and murdering unbelievers in their sleep) and the primary emphasis put on Exodus instead.

Laughing Man wrote:It was quite important to the early Hebrews, it's just that, unlike their creation myths and lineage, they shared a cosmology with other local tribes, and declined to mention its existence as it was considered common knowledge.

When something is of key religious importance it is usually codified. You see it in virtually all religions. If the cosmology of the universe was essential to Hebrew religion, it would have been codified in religious texts. That it was not, and rather is only referenced in passing, suggests that while it may of mattered to the culture, it didn't really matter to the religion. Hebrew cosmology was codified in other non-religious texts. Saying Hebrew cosmology is part of religious belief is similar to saying their folk lore was part of their religious belief, when it is very clear it was not.

The ancient Hebrews were a rather organized bunch when it came to writing things down. They codified things differently based on what it meant to them. That cosmology is not a major focus of Hebrew religious texts is rather telling as to its importance in that area.

Proper living is, of course, very important to any religion, but it doesn't completely invalidate their creation myths. Mind you, "proper living" has evolved considerably since the Torah was codified, with a hell of a lot less emphasis put on most of Leviticus's commandments (see: stoning gays, forcing women to marry their rapists, and murdering unbelievers in their sleep) and the primary emphasis put on Exodus instead.

I don't seek to invalidate them. I merely challenge the notion that Hebrew cosmology was vital to hebrew religion.

Proper living is important to any religion, but it was the primary focus of Hebrew religion. You'll notice in both the Torah and the Old Testament that Jewish religion wasn't as concerned with the afterlife, cosmology, nature, or even the nature of God. Rather it was heavily focused on Jewish history, morality, and law (in contrast to Christian faith for example, which is more heavily focused on the afterlife, spiritual salvation, and the nature of god).

I don't seek to invalidate them. I merely challenge the notion that Hebrew cosmology was vital to hebrew religion.

Perhaps vital is the wrong word, at least, vital to the religion. It is, however, key in correctly interpreting most of Hebrew mythology. For instance, Gen 1:6-7 makes little sense if taken in context of the real universe, but is perfectly logical if you're looking at a universe where the world is surrounded by water on (literally) all sides.

I will, of course, agree with you that obeying the Law was (and still is) far more important to your average Jew than the precise design of the universe.

Vene wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.

Um, yeah, about that, we can bloody look back in time due to the speed of light. There's also predicted consequences of the big bang theory, things like how everything in the universe should be moving away from everything else (redshift) and there should also be a little thing called cosmic background radiation. Neither of these effects would make sense without the big bang. This isn't really a matter of discussion anymore, this is very solid physics.

We can see up to but not beyond, noone can claim to be qualified to look beyond. To his credit Hawking doesnt make that claim, or even for the first instances of the big bang.
My beef is not with him but people who claim he says he is qualified to defintively state there was no God at the origin of the universe, something he doesnt appear to claim himself.

Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.

A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:

'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'

Vene wrote:
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.

It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

Whats wrong with that? The Bible predates the Linnean system. The ancient definition of bird 'is it flies and isnt a bug'. It's not even unscientific as its consistent within its own time. Linneus reclassified various animals, but that doesnt change their integral nature. In fact the food laws in Leviticus arent challenged as 'a point of science' by anyone with scientific credibility. The food laws are there because of problems with food preservation and the make up of the meat, as a health guide Kosher/Halal makes a lot of sense. You shouldnt eat pork in a hot climate without refrigeration technology, or many types of bird or bats for that matter.

I just glanced through the article, but am I the only one who doesn't think he was making any sort of statement of atheism, but was rather saying that the creation of the universe as described by the collections of observation and theory we refer to as physics does not *require* a deity or creator?

I don't know what he is going to say in his book, but I didn't see any statement to the effect of " There is no God or gods" by Stephen Hawking in that particular three paragraph news blurb.

Also, as far the discrepancy between what the hebrew bible considers fish or animal or whatever; I agree with Orlath that the dietary laws predate Linnaeus and don't really have anything to do with the modern concept of a species. After all, the Linnaeus classification is nothing more than a model which explains observable, repeatable empirical data in terms that humans can understand. It works, but partly it works because what we describe as Aves means, by definition, that those creatures that share characteristics we have observed are something we call birds, and those creatures that do not share those characteristics are "not bird". There is no reason to call them birds, other than that is a model that we use in science to describe nature. There is nothing that has inherent "birdness", it is just a name we apply to those creatures who are observed to possess a (human defined) set of characteristics.

Scientific models are just that, they're human understandable models that are applied to something that is fundamentally unknowable. To give something I'm more familiar with, we'll never see how the electronic environment surrounding one molecule or atom interacts with another molecule or atom to (what we arbitrarily have named) begin a chemical reaction. This is something that is completely foreign to human experience. Therefore, we make a model to describe what is occuring, and one of the best models is called molecular orbital theory. It can describe very well what is observed to occur, and it can be described quite accurately with mathematics ( Although those mathematical solutions are approximate for all but the simplest systems, i.e. different variations of one electron and one proton). It is a model though, it isn't *reality*.

Orlanth wrote:

Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.

A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:

'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'

But then it's not a false dichotomy, in this situation there really are only two possibilities, for Pascal's Wager, however, there's a lot more options that are ignored, which is why it is fallacious.

Whats wrong with that? The Bible predates the Linnean system. The ancient definition of bird 'is it flies and isnt a bug'. It's not even unscientific as its consistent within its own time. Linneus reclassified various animals, but that doesnt change their integral nature. In fact the food laws in Leviticus arent challenged as 'a point of science' by anyone with scientific credibility. The food laws are there because of problems with food preservation and the make up of the meat, as a health guide Kosher/Halal makes a lot of sense. You shouldnt eat pork in a hot climate without refrigeration technology, or many types of bird or bats for that matter.

Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.

Grignard wrote:I just glanced through the article, but am I the only one who doesn't think he was making any sort of statement of atheism, but was rather saying that the creation of the universe as described by the collections of observation and theory we refer to as physics does not *require* a deity or creator?

I don't know what he is going to say in his book, but I didn't see any statement to the effect of " There is no God or gods" by Stephen Hawking in that particular three paragraph news blurb.

Hawking is actually a self described Agnostic (open to the idea... but doesn't believe due to lack of evidence) .... and the Blurb is meant to sell the book

As far as pascals wager.... I'm sure people realize that... if you don't truly believe and there turns out to be a god... he most likely will know you faked it.... and yea you're screwed... so you may as well profess Non-belief : )

I still prefer my flying spaghetti monster....

frgsinwntr wrote:I still prefer my flying spaghetti monster....

Your god is delicious.

I really love that people in this thread that were so outraged at the idea of Hawking being criticised were so happy to criticise Pascal. After all, he was one of the most important figures in the creation of probability theory. We can recognise this while also recognising that Pascal's Wager is a bit silly.

I'm not a physicist, I watch documentaries on the telly every once in a while and that's about it, and once they get onto the tricky stuff I'm basically reduced to staring at images of CGI wobbly string. As I understand it, when people talk about Hawkins being overrated, what they mean is that he, like a person like Einstein before him, is basically the pre-eminent face of physics, and probably the most recognised living scientist. Thing is, Einstein was pre-eminent in his field, whereas Hawking is one of many highly acclaimed scientists, and not the most respected in his field.

That said, I think Hawking is completely badass, if only for the one he presents his arguments. He doesn't name his lectures things like 'A proof of quantum string logic probability in examining the electrical fields of donkadooballs', he calls them stuff like 'I have proven there are multiple universes because I am awesome'. I think I like the Japanese American guy who presents stuff on the Discovery Channel more though, because he has a soothing voice and cool hair. I have no idea what either of them are talking about.

Monster Rain wrote:And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.

No, they're very different. Science has a long history of predicting the existance of many things and then going out to find them. Black holes were first predicted by following the formulas to their logical conclusions, then we set about trying and eventually succeeding in locating some. No-one ever said 'I take the existance of black holes as a point of personal faith', they said 'theoretical science has indicated that there should be black holes in the sky, so we will go looking for them to confirm our science'. The same is true of dark matter.

People really need to stop claiming science and religion are dealing with the same things. It isn't any good for science, and it isn't any good for religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Doggles wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.

Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.

How so?

For the theory to hold water it would require that you believe in the right God, so to materially affect your chances of going to heaven there would need to be only a few religions to choose from, there have been thousands upon thousands over human history. It requires the assumption that God cares at all about belief and not in good works or anything like that. It assumes that true faith can be reached not by a spiritual journey but by a self-interested balancing of probabilities... and that God cannot tell the difference. It assumes that there is no cost to worship, that one simply believes without spending any time worshipping, or checking one's actions out of adherence to what God presumably instructed.

It is, basically, a fun little idea with an honoured place in the history of philosophy that is now very outdated. It is thrown out to undergraduates to pick holes in. You really aren't supposed to take it seriously these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Why do you think religion is so prickly?

If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!

It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!

So atheism must be right because there are no prickly atheists. Not one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:

'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'

Yes, and the choice to believe is binary, but unlike Pascal's model there are more than two possibilities for the afterlife. As has been pointed out, God may or may not exist, may or may not be interested in rewarding a person for belief, may or may not be interested in punishing people for worshiping him due to a balancing of probabilities...

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:

'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'

Yes, and the choice to believe is binary, but unlike Pascal's model there are more than two possibilities for the afterlife. As has been pointed out, God may or may not exist, may or may not be interested in rewarding a person for belief, may or may not be interested in punishing people for worshiping him due to a balancing of probabilities...

You're forgetting some, the god you believe in and the god that exists may not match; you also might have picked the wrong denomination; or the god that exists might not even punish people for non-belief in the first place. I mostly point these out because the options are not only between the Christian god or no god, there's Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Deism, Wicca, Scientology, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. and it annoys me when people can't see beyond the dominant religion.

Sebster covered multiple religions earlier in his post.

Vene wrote:You're forgetting some, the god you believe in and the god that exists may not match; you also might have picked the wrong denomination; or the god that exists might not even punish people for non-belief in the first place. I mostly point these out because the options are not only between the Christian god or no god, there's Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Deism, Wicca, Scientology, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. and it annoys me when people can't see beyond the dominant religion.

That isn't me missing some points, that's the same point repeated a few times. I did point it out in my first comment on the problems with Pascal's Wager, when addressing Orlanth's point on the binary status of the issue I wasn't really trying for a complete list, I was just trying to point out that while the question was binary the number of possible answers were not. So the second time I listed the problems my list was a lot less complete.

You are right though, there is the chance that your choice to worship may end up being to the wrong God. You may even end up in heaven in front of a God who is more angered by worshipping the wrong God than by not worshipping at all, or maybe a God who is angered by the very idea of worship.

sebster wrote:You are right though, there is the chance that your choice to worship may end up being to the wrong God. You may even end up in heaven in front of a God who is more angered by worshipping the wrong God than by not worshipping at all, or maybe a God who is angered by the very idea of worship.

That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.

whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.

Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager. The problem is that Pascal proposes only one state for his God, one who looks positively on Christian style worship. It is this second part that people have been expressing the problem with... not that there is a wager, but the nature of that wager cannot be reduced to a range of options, as the nature of God is unknowable.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.

No, they're very different. Science has a long history of predicting the existance of many things and then going out to find them. Black holes were first predicted by following the formulas to their logical conclusions, then we set about trying and eventually succeeding in locating some. No-one ever said 'I take the existance of black holes as a point of personal faith', they said 'theoretical science has indicated that there should be black holes in the sky, so we will go looking for them to confirm our science'. The same is true of dark matter.

People really need to stop claiming science and religion are dealing with the same things. It isn't any good for science, and it isn't any good for religion.

Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort.

In truth, there is no direct evidence for the effect of Dark Matter. It's existence can be inferred by observing the Universe, but then there are those who would say that what some call the effect of Dark Matter are actually caused by Loop Quantum Gravity or Modified Gravity. And call me old-fashioned but I'm still holding out for Einstein's Anti-Gravity to make a comeback in a big way.

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.

Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.

Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.

The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.

Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.

Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.

Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.

Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.

The choice is to believe in god or not through your life. Pascal says you should wager to believe since by the bible's words those who believe will be accepted by god. So you may as well believe in him because you have nothing to lose. If you don't believe and it ends up true then you've lost out.

Sebster is saying it's the belief in the existance of A god or not. But I think Pascal was talking of the belief in the christain god, or not.

Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.

A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:

But then it's not a false dichotomy, in this situation there really are only two possibilities, for Pascal's Wager, however, there's a lot more options that are ignored, which is why it is fallacious.

Orlanth wrote:

Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.

Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.

Also, was it Genetics Fail or was it known to people who kept a lot of animals that things wouldn't normally work out the way they did in that passage and that the strange event would be a testament to God's ability to affect their lives?

Orlanth wrote:
Such as?
Within the paradigm given of Christian faith, there are only two options.
Saying otherwise wont make it so.

A false dichotomy is any situation in which only two options are presented despite the presence of many more. This can be done either by simplification, or ignorance; ie. the additional options may either be folded into broad categories, or simply hand-waved into nonexistence.

Pascal's Wage presents a false dichotomy through simplification; ie. representing the set of belief (referring only to Christianity) as equivalent to the set of non-belief (atheism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) when its absolutely plain that the set of non-belief is far larger than the set of belief. As such, Pascal's argument, that one may as well believe because the probability of being correct is equivalent but the reward is greater for those who believe, is invalid due to a misrepresentation of the probability involved in the course of the wager.

Another point to the Pascal's wager concept is the argument that if you believe, you haven't lost anything - it could be argued that you've actually lost quite a lot - like all of your Sunday mornings, in some cases your cash (tithing - I realise this isn't widespread, but it was valid in Pascal's time, and it still is in some cases today), and also having to cope with a truckload of cognitive dissonance caused by biblical stories being inconsistent with reality (Noah's ark, what a laugh...), or inconsistent with your own moral framework (as, for example, a gay catholic, or perhaps anyone concerned with animal welfare but faced with halal or shechita).

Shall we wander into the related pastures of theodicy / the problem of evil? - I quite like Epicurus' paradox - the logic is more compelling than Pascal's pathetic reasoning.

Doggles wrote:Another point to the Pascal's wager concept is the argument that if you believe, you haven't lost anything - it could be argued that you've actually lost quite a lot - like all of your Sunday mornings, in some cases your cash (tithing - I realise this isn't widespread, but it was valid in Pascal's time, and it still is in some cases today), and also having to cope with a truckload of cognitive dissonance caused by biblical stories being inconsistent with reality (Noah's ark, what a laugh...), or inconsistent with your own moral framework (as, for example, a gay catholic, or perhaps anyone concerned with animal welfare but faced with halal or shechita).

Shall we wander into the related pastures of theodicy / the problem of evil? - I quite like Epicurus' paradox - the logic is more compelling than Pascal's pathetic reasoning.

I don't know if labeling it as pathetic is necessary. In fact it seems blatantly inflammatory.

Theodicy is what made me into an agnostic, but the faithful have a explanation that works for them.