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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.

But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.

Adam and Eve are not even the first humans mentioned in the Bible, so your interpretation of what the Bible says about the origins of humans appears to be a bit shaky.

Edit:

And having to "metaphor stories" is somewhat of the point since the Bible is not a scientific text. I think myself and a few others have already explained that we don't have a problem with the Bible giving the "what" and science giving the "how". So it seems a bit silly for us to say "it's not a science book, so it doesn't conflit for us" and for you to reply "yes it conflicts, let me use it as a science book to show you".


Just speaking for myself here: Genesis 1 just says that everything that is was created by God, that includes a planet full of humans. It doesn't say how the humans were created and for me there is zero conflict to think that the first humans in Genesis were the first members of the evolved race we consider humans today.

Well, I'll leave the Biblical expertise to you. In any case, the Book of Genesis as a literal story would only make sense if it started with an abiogenis event, followed by millions of years of gradual evolution by natural selection, leading to a group of hominids in Africa and all the slpendid lifeforms everywhere else.

It clearly does not literally say that, and that was my only point. A literal interpretation of Genesis being compatible with modern biology is right out (and that's to say nothing whatsoever of geology or astronomy).

Anyway, I know most people take this as a metaphorical origin story. That's the problem. It's presented as fact (it is very recent in history that people took the story as a metaphor). Lots of other stuff (like Jesus' existence and the events that are said to have happened in his life) are presented as fact, as well. Where does one draw a line in the sand?

Not my problem, I don't believe in this stuff to begin with


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Just speaking for myself here: Genesis 1 just says that everything that is was created by God, that includes a planet full of humans. It doesn't say how the humans were created and for me there is zero conflict to think that the first humans in Genesis were the first members of the evolved race we consider humans today.

For what its worth, through literary analysis it is well known that Genesis is the combination of 2 (maybe 3, I can't remember) sources. There are actually multiple stories that were bashed together, and there are contradictions between them. I don't remember what they are, but its actually a very interesting topic.

The second story begins with Chapter 2, where God clearly is said to have created man out of clay (wrong) before there was any grass on the planet (wrong).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

And having to "metaphor stories" is somewhat of the point since the Bible is not a scientific text. I think myself and a few others have already explained that we don't have a problem with the Bible giving the "what" and science giving the "how". So it seems a bit silly for us to say "it's not a science book, so it doesn't conflit for us" and for you to reply "yes it conflicts, let me use it as a science book to show you".

I was just responding to the assertion that there was nothing in the Bible that contradicted evolution.

If the assertion was "There is nothing in the Bible, besides stuff that can be dismissed as metaphor and/or poetry, that contradicts evolution", then I would not have responded at all.

 jasper76 wrote:

The second story begins with Chapter 2, where God clearly is said to have created man out of clay (wrong) before there was any grass on the planet (wrong).

Depending on the translation it could be dust, and we are now thinking that the basic amino acids that started evolution came on meteorites (cosmic dust!), which would have landed on earth before there was any grass

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.

But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.

Only if you think that it wasn't always a metaphor. There is plenty of evidence to support that interpretation. There are a lot of problems with a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, long before you ever bring modern biology into it.

So, out of mere curiosity, who decides which stories were meant to be metaphors, and which ones were meant to be actual accounts?

(to me, they don't work as metaphors or actual accounts, so I'm not asking you to convince me of anything, I'm just curious how this gets decided)

 jasper76 wrote:
I was just responding to the assertion that there was nothing in the Bible that contradicted evolution.

If the assertion was "There is nothing in the Bible, besides stuff that can be dismissed as metaphor and/or poetry, that contradicts evolution", then I would not have responded at all.

The only reason that I said the former without the caveat you included in the latter is because, outside of extreme literalism (which is theologically unsupportable) anyone who has done any Bible study at all knows that significant portions of the Bible are metaphorical. I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, which seems to have been a mistake on my part.

 Hordini wrote:
my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking.

Well I think that is perfectly reasonable, science might even end up proving the existence of a god like creator one day (who knows?). I could agree with you 100% if we were just talking about believing in a god (any god). But Christians don't just believe in any god, they believe quite specific things about him, what he wants, how he operates, how we speak to him. This is the part that strains belief. The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible. But why should the bible be any more true than the million other religious texts?

If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed.

Yes, perhaps. But then perhaps the text is flawed. A text that seems to require extensive retconning and reinterpretation in order to fit the facts, is exactly what I would expect from a text that wasn't based on facts in the first place. If it was a scientific theory like the flat Earth, then it would just be considered debunked by now. We wouldn't have millions of people trying to reinterpret the word "flat" to try and keep it alive. If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.

 jasper76 wrote:
So, out of mere curiosity, who decides which stories were meant to be metaphors, and which ones were meant to be actual accounts?

(to me, they don't work as metaphors or actual accounts, so I'm not asking you to convince me of anything, I'm just curious how this gets decided)

To a certain extent, it's up to the reader. You're welcome to come up with whatever interpretation you want (however strong or weak that interpretation may be). That said, there is loads and loads of scholarship on the matter, both by religious and non-religious scholars. If you do some research on the subject, figuring out, for the most part, which sections are metaphors and which ones are more likely to be close to actual accounts, is not that difficult.

 Smacks wrote:
Which would involve an admission that at least part of the source text is irreconcilably false. And yet the rest is somehow definitely true? I think reason starts to break down at this point.

No, actually, that's wrong. It would only necessarily involve the absence of belief in a part of the source text. To lack a belief in a claim is not to necessarily argue that claim is false.

Additionally, to insinuate that because one part of a text is demonstrably false, the rest of it cannot be definitely true is to commit the fallacy of composition. It also seems that you are mixing the positions of multiple religious people into a single position, thereby creating a false equivalence.

 Hordini wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So, out of mere curiosity, who decides which stories were meant to be metaphors, and which ones were meant to be actual accounts?

(to me, they don't work as metaphors or actual accounts, so I'm not asking you to convince me of anything, I'm just curious how this gets decided)

To a certain extent, it's up to the reader. You're welcome to come up with whatever interpretation you want (however strong or weak that interpretation may be). That said, there is loads and loads of scholarship on the matter, both by religious and non-religious scholars. If you do some research on the subject, figuring out, for the most part, which sections are metaphors and which ones are more likely to be close to actual accounts, is not that difficult.

Cool. Its not a terribly interesting subject to me (litwral vs. metaphorical interpretations), as I find the core premise of an intelligent creator of the universe to be highly improbable, but I'll take your word for it, and I'm glad your church or religion or whatever takes that approach.

 Smacks wrote:

The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible

And various statements by important Christians throughout the years, as well devotees of other Abrhamic religions.

 Smacks wrote:
If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.

One can lack objectivity and still reason properly, they're not mutually exclusive concepts. They can't be unless to reason properly is to be a person who lacks all emotion.

But differently from what? There are plenty of translations of non-religious texts that have gone through repeated revisions through translation.

I came here to be click baited, not to have a religion vs science argument.

But on that subject, surely it's not the ideas and such these people follow that is at fault, it's the terrible people who take it and twist it (or focus exclusively on a part that can be taken out of context to say smite the unbelievers) into something it's not, that should be derided.

 dogma wrote:
Additionally, to insinuate that because one part of a text is demonstrably false, the rest of it cannot be definitely true is to commit the fallacy of composition.

The fallacy of composition is one of the dangers of inductive reasoning, yet inductive reasoning is still a very powerful (essential) tool for exploring and discovering the truth. Argument from fallacy is not.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't dispute that at all. I was just pointing out they adherence to certain ideas despite evidence to the contrary is not something that is restricted to members of various religions.

Being a scientist doesn't mean you are free from that risk. Look at Mayim Bialik from the Big Bang Theory: PhD in neuroscience and still an anti-vaxxer.

People with closed minds can be found in all areas of life.

This is true, although I feel compelled to point out that just because scientists are human and therefore flawed, it does not mean that science (or more properly the scientific method) is flawed. Nor does some of those flawed people treating it (however unwittingly) as an ideology make it one.

Also, I never understood anti-vaxxers. I mean, even on the (nonexistent) chance that there is a chance of vaccinations causing autism, I would much, much, much rather deal with a (only possibly) autistic child than with my baby boy dying of a perfectly preventable disease.

Bran Dawri wrote:
just because scientists are human and therefore flawed, it does not mean that science (or more properly the scientific method) is flawed.

People are imperfect but the system is perfect sounds awfully familiar.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.

Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.

If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.

And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.

Of course there are scientists who cling to ideas that might be disproved. Scientists are human. Humans are not infallible, ego-free, nor immune to the foibles of our mental processes... The whole point of the rationale behind the scientific method, however, is that it provides a methodology for correcting and/or accounting for those foibles. Or as Richard Feynman quipped, "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves".

More directly, I'd strongly suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" . The "problem" of changing scientific paradigms is well-known in the historiography and philosophy of science...

It's also absolutely worth pointing out that many, if not all, of the scientific discoveries that are universally lauded as being "great", are discoveries that directly, or indirectly, refute the previous paradigm. Those shifts do not happen quickly, but science lauds those who advance knowledge, even if (especially if?) it destroys the pre-existing paradigm.

Valete,

JohnS

 Smacks wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.

I did no such thing, and that is not my opinion. There are plenty of moderate religious people who are mostly benign. The only brush I tarred them all with is believing in a god, which is true by definition. This in itself is dangerous enough, as irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.

 easysauce wrote:
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.

Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?

there you go again, painting with the broad brush

choosing bits and pieces to believe is not a religious trait, its a *human* one...
non religious people pick and choose what to believe as well, in the exact same way...
ask any liberal/conservative and you see them picking and choosing all the flipping time.

we made up scientific theories ourselves too, and changed them ourselves too, doesnt invalidate them... thats how religion and science are supposed to work, they are not static things never to change.


Trans people pick and choose, they accept the "evidence" in their heads that they are one gender over the evidence in their pants/genes.ect, so dont act like its only religious people who do it. And yet I would never call them "dangerous" or irrational as you did with all religious people.

If you expect religious people to treat your beliefs with respect, then treat their beliefs with respect too.

Calling out believing in god as dangerous and irrational is not different then calling out trans people as dangerous and irrational either.

If you dont want to be held as irrational and dangerous for your beliefs/faith/ect, dont call out other groups as such for theirs.

YOu are more then welcome to believe all religions are poppy cock, but stop furthering incorrect stereotypes at least., its offensive even if religions are the de jour "its ok to stereotype" group.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?

I would surmise that it challenges her religious world-view.

Every time you are presented with facts that contradict your beliefs, it is frightening. This happens to atheists and scientists too. Some people are mentally or emotionally strong enough not to dismiss the frightening new facts out of hand. "When the facts change, I change my mind."

The other point is that disbelieving in evolution is in the developed western world a characteristic of minority sects. Another characteristic of minority choice groups is their psychological need to preserve their distinct identity from the majority. Thus mocking evolution is an important behaviour for people who are members of groups that disbelieve in evolution.

That may sound like circular logic but of course it isn't logic, it is psychological pressures at work.

 easysauce wrote:
there you go again, painting with the broad brush

I'm not painting with a broad brush. It is virtually impossible to follow the bible literally. So all Christians pick and choose.

choosing bits and pieces to believe is not a religious trait, its a *human* one...

There is noting wrong with picking and choosing, but there is certainly something wrong with saying "my religion is true" when you don't even believe large chunks of it yourself. "Reinterpreting" the bible to say things it doesn't say (for example including dinosaurs) is fairly dishonest. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs for the simple reason that the people who wrote it didn't know about them. They also didn't know much about the nature of the planets and the galaxy so that stuff isn't in there either. Creative "reinterpretation" aside.

I'm not sure why anyone would believe these people knew anything about god either. Given that no supernatural phenomenon of any kind has ever been proven, I think there is a very good chance they didn't know any more than we do. However, if they did know about god, and people are sure of that, then why pick and choose? This is the fundamental contradiction of Christian belief.

If there is a divine creator, then the chances of him being the same as the god worshiped by modern Christians seems impossible extremely improbable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?

I would surmise that it challenges her religious world-view.

Every time you are presented with facts that contradict your beliefs, it is frightening. This happens to atheists and scientists too. Some people are mentally or emotionally strong enough not to dismiss the frightening new facts out of hand. "When the facts change, I change my mind."

The other point is that disbelieving in evolution is in the developed western world a characteristic of minority sects. Another characteristic of minority choice groups is their psychological need to preserve their distinct identity from the majority. Thus mocking evolution is an important behaviour for people who are members of groups that disbelieve in evolution.

That may sound like circular logic but of course it isn't logic, it is psychological pressures at work.

I'd responded to my own question earlier. I think fear of evolution (as well as fear of the age of the earth and the universe) is at root fear of death. To some people, if Biblical accounts of the material universe are untrue, that means that the Biblical promise of surviving death could also be untrue, and some people use Christianity (as well as other religions) to ameliorate the common fear of death. The degree to which they are consciously aware of why these things frighten them is an interesting question to me.

 Smacks wrote:
Several no less?

When you're related to someone in a given profession, it's not unusual for them to know other people in a similar profession

It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions.

Yes, that is a shame. Of course, nobody I know who works in IT, or in retail, or driving busses has ever proven their abilities under laboratory conditions, either.

That would have put to rest so many of our questions about life and death in one easy sitting.

Given that laboratory testing of anything to do with psychic ability has always been somewhat fruitless, I'm not sure what you would expect from it.

I think deep down these people know they are (at best) deluding themselves, and at worst taking advantage of other people's gullibility and need for closure.

I think that deep down people who make baseless generalisations from their own prejudice about people they don't know realise that their behaviour is not particularly rational or polite, but unfortunately there's no laboratory test for that either.

..... I have just lost braincells to that. Someone please relocate a ballistic missile onto her head. Killing braincells via stupidity should be a major crime

Im off to restore intelligence via binaric math

 insaniak wrote:

It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions.

Yes, that is a shame. Of course, nobody I know who works in IT, or in retail, or driving busses has ever proven their abilities under laboratory conditions, either.

Bus drivers are not claiming to have supernatural abilities. I'm sure any of them would be happy to prove their ability to drive a bus is genuine for one million dollars.

Given that laboratory testing of anything to do with psychic ability has always been somewhat fruitless, I'm not sure what you would expect from it.

They have always been fruitless because psychic ability isn't a real thing. If it were then it would be solid proof of life after death, the human soul etc... I'd also expect more psychics to, y'know, win the lottery.

I think that deep down people who make baseless generalisations from their own prejudice about people they don't know realise that their behaviour is not particularly rational or polite, but unfortunately there's no laboratory test for that either.

Well it isn't baseless. What is baseless is the assertion that people have psychic powers. Saying that they categorically do not, is a perfectly rational conclusion based on the fact that no one has ever been able to prove they have powers under any kind of scrutiny.

 Smacks wrote:
Well it isn't baseless.

Yes it is. Nobody is disputing the fact that "psychic powers" do not exist. The issue is that you're assuming that everyone who claims to have them is engaging in deliberate fraud, when this clearly isn't true. There are obviously a lot of frauds out there, but there are also people who sincerely believe that their "powers" are real. And there are ways to talk about those people being wrong without calling them frauds or other forum-rule-violating names.

I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.

Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".

 Torga_DW wrote:
I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.

Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".

As Smack alluded to, there is a million dollars up for grabs for someone who can pass James Randi's test. If I believed I had psychic powers, I would jump on it. Its been around for almost 20 years now, and no winners.

I remember sitting down with Soladrin, Purplefood, Avatar720 and Vitruvian and watching loads of those James Randi tests.

Great fun.

corpsesarefun might've been there too but honestly he sorta blends into the background*.

*like furniture, but furniture has a higher IQ

Random article:

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=485161

I never know what to make of these things. Don't have access to better journals until I get back to school so I'm not able to research it better.

From personal experience gained by working in the medical field for 13 years I have observed that prayer (at least for people who pray or know that they are being prayed for) can work. Even coworkers that are atheists agree that prayer can improve outcomes. Does that mean that it is proof of God doing something, that answer will depend on who you are asking. But it is well documented that people have improved outcomes from various placebo effects, and that patients with more positive views of what is happening often have better outcomes. So a person that prays might get better for the same reason that the person who gets the blue sugar pill gets better. But it means that prayer can work, even if it doesn't work the way the person praying thinks it does.

Positive thinking has a powerful effect on people.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!

 Torga_DW wrote:
I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.

Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".

Of course science can't rule out psychic powers. Claiming that can be a goal shows a misunderstanding of how science works. Science can't prove that something doesn't exist... What science can do is make rigorous observations and generate theories, with falsifiable hypotheses, that best fit those observations.

What science can say in this case is that there are no rigorous observations that support a hypothesis that psychic powers are real. Moreover, based on all of the other, tested, hypotheses that currently make up our understanding of the wold, there is no, plausible, mechanism by which psychic powers could work. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Provide rigorous, repeatable, observations that psychic powers exist, then come up with a falsifiable hypothesis for how they work and, finally, survive the no-doubt very critical peer-review process, and you would convince the world that they're real. It's that simple. Heck, you could probably even get away with leaving the hypothesis part to someone else. Just provide the rigorous, repeatable, observations and you'd probably be golden...

That's it. But no one's surmounted that hurdle yet...

Valete,

JohnS