I'm not sure which method you're referring to. I mentioned a couple directly and implied several others.
evidence...
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
I'm not sure which method you're referring to. I mentioned a couple directly and implied several others.
Actually most of them would be better thought of as proto scientists since science as we understand it today had not been developed yet. And you might note that even in their fields, most of them as early developers of science had suspect conclusions which were later corrected. I find it ironic you include Galileo who was under duress and Newton, who despite his scientific contributions was otherwise a bit of a fruitcake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
Further god is not their field of expertise. But let’s focus on Einstein, from whom there is quite a bit available.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954
I believe in Spinoza's God [pantheism where god = nature] who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind
[O]nly if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.
-- Albert Einstein
Strange is our situation here on Earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men -- above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.
-- Albert Einstein
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary
However we select from nature a complex [of phenomena] using the criterion of simplicity, in no case will its theoretical treatment turn out to be forever appropriate (sufficient).... I do not doubt that the day will come when [general relativity], too, will have to yield to another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise. I believe that this process of deepening theory has no limits.
-- Albert Einstein, acknowledging that all claims to knowledge are de facto subject to revision upon presentation of newer, better evidence
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
-- Albert Einstein
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
-- Albert Einstein
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
-- Albert Einstein
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
-- Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.
-- Albert Einstein
The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud (30 July 1932) ††
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in part from the various poster-portraits of Einstein that have graced Cliff Walker's wall for almost two decades
One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
-- Albert Einstein
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm
Unfortunately strong religious beliefs often cause blind spots.
Based on this quote he is working with the presumption that anything which agrees with the bible is true and anything which disagrees needs "more work."
In other words he is clearly biased.
Finally truth is not distributive. Finding that some of the historical events are more or less true doesn't mean the mythology is in the least true.
Here is a modern critic of the bible as a historical document:
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_(Harpers).htm
Basically that is how I see it. I love the use of the word 'primitive'. I am constantly amazed when I think of the reliance and attention given to ancient manuscripts. Despite our ever increasing knowledge & understanding, a great percentage of Earth's human population still clings to the literary works of a long past age as gospel.
The time Einstein took to respond to philosophic and God questions was simply a waste, so typical of religion to even temporarily remove a man of genius from his research or work. The guy revolutionizes how we look at the universe and religion, stuck in the dark ages, is comparing his work to some prehistoric mumbo jumbo and then asking his opinion on it.
Nothing can be proven to anyone without their willingness to accept it.
1111
1111
Perhaps. But then the strong beliefs in "love" also cause blinds spots ....as evidenced by the 50% divorce rates in the USA.
Do you believe in "love"? "Compassion"? "Empathy"? Do you believe in any of the human emotions? And if so, on what scientific evidence do you base those beliefs?
Baron Max
Divorce rates may be related to the level & manner of love not remaining the same for a lifetime. It says nothing of love otherwise. Why is there such an assumption that love must last forever or it was majorly flawed???
1111
My bad. I thought this was just one method, and the apparent correct one at that. Is this the method used to find Troy? How about the two dead cities on the south of the dead sea?
I'm still making a bit of an assumption, but let me assume you mean the method of having a research question and looking for data/evidence to support or falsify it.
If so, then, yes, that's the methods employed. Although Schliemann and his partner (Calvert? My memory is failing on this) were somewhat on the more hopeful side -enough that its probably fair to suggest that Schliemann felt certain Troy would be found based on Greek mythology and other stories that alluded it in the Mediterranean world.
They actually proceeded with a bit of reckless abandon on the excavations and some data was probably lost as a result -archaeology is, after all, a science of destruction since in order to look at a given layer, one must necessarily destroy layers that lie above the target layer that contains the culture you want to examine.
There are a couple of books on Schliemann's Troy (one goes by that title I think) that are helpful if you have more than a passing interest in Troy, specifically. Interestingly enough, the tell discovered by Calvert at Hissarlik in Turkey, and subsequently excavated by he and Schliemann, has, to date, not yielded anything that calls itself "Troy" in the way that the Iliad does. Critics and skeptics of Troy cite the myth's insistence of Troy being far grander (a great walled city with streets, houses and palaces -the residence of 50,000 people) than it actually is (dirt floors, small buildings and modest fortification for far fewer inhabitants).
Still, many, myself included, recognize that ancient mythology has a tendency to embellish stories to create a caricature or an ideal type of events past. Real events undergoing such embellishments and hyperbole are how we end up with myths. The Iliad, along with Homer's other stories, were in existence as oral stories, probably long before Homer wrote them down. Indeed, there are many mnemonic devices within epic poetry like that of Homer that is consistent with an oral tradition. Such devices are usually repetitive or rhythmic phrases or sometimes repetitive motifs and archetypes which make it easy to remember accurately enough to reproduce a story as close to the original as possible. Story tellers were likely rated or attained status based on their ability to keep to the story.
So, its very likely that Hissarlik is, in fact, the Troy of Homer's period (or just before Homer), but talked-up and embellished and not precisely as Homer described.
This can be said about biblical mythology as well. While many fundamentalists and biblical literalists are offended by referring to their texts as "mythology," this is truly the only way to approach archaeology in the region. Understanding that mythology often has kernels of truth from which the stories are then embellished and added to over time, adds the perspective any investigator grounded in reality who is looking for an objective truth needs to work with. Myths evolve with the cultures that tell them, constantly suiting their propaganda needs and this occurs even in modernity. It wasn't long ago that Christians appealed to their bible to justify slavery -now we reject such appeals based on modern morality, casting Bronze Age morality aside.
The objective truth is out there in archaeological sites, waiting to be found. If I were to arrive at conclusions based on Judeo-Christian texts and reject scientifically tested evidence (data) as wrong because it conflicts with biblical mythology, then I'm not interested in an objective truth, but, rather, a mythical truth.
If so, then, yes, that's the methods employed. Although Schliemann and his partner (Calvert? My memory is failing on this) were somewhat on the more hopeful side -enough that its probably fair to suggest that Schliemann felt certain Troy would be found based on Greek mythology and other stories that alluded it in the Mediterranean world.
They actually proceeded with a bit of reckless abandon on the excavations and some data was probably lost as a result -archaeology is, after all, a science of destruction since in order to look at a given layer, one must necessarily destroy layers that lie above the target layer that contains the culture you want to examine.
There are a couple of books on Schliemann's Troy (one goes by that title I think) that are helpful if you have more than a passing interest in Troy, specifically. Interestingly enough, the tell discovered by Calvert at Hissarlik in Turkey, and subsequently excavated by he and Schliemann, has, to date, not yielded anything that calls itself "Troy" in the way that the Iliad does. Critics and skeptics of Troy cite the myth's insistence of Troy being far grander (a great walled city with streets, houses and palaces -the residence of 50,000 people) than it actually is (dirt floors, small buildings and modest fortification for far fewer inhabitants).
Still, many, myself included, recognize that ancient mythology has a tendency to embellish stories to create a caricature or an ideal type of events past. Real events undergoing such embellishments and hyperbole are how we end up with myths. The Iliad, along with Homer's other stories, were in existence as oral stories, probably long before Homer wrote them down. Indeed, there are many mnemonic devices within epic poetry like that of Homer that is consistent with an oral tradition. Such devices are usually repetitive or rhythmic phrases or sometimes repetitive motifs and archetypes which make it easy to remember accurately enough to reproduce a story as close to the original as possible. Story tellers were likely rated or attained status based on their ability to keep to the story.
So, its very likely that Hissarlik is, in fact, the Troy of Homer's period (or just before Homer), but talked-up and embellished and not precisely as Homer described.
This can be said about biblical mythology as well. While many fundamentalists and biblical literalists are offended by referring to their texts as "mythology," this is truly the only way to approach archaeology in the region. Understanding that mythology often has kernels of truth from which the stories are then embellished and added to over time, adds the perspective any investigator grounded in reality who is looking for an objective truth needs to work with. Myths evolve with the cultures that tell them, constantly suiting their propaganda needs and this occurs even in modernity. It wasn't long ago that Christians appealed to their bible to justify slavery -now we reject such appeals based on modern morality, casting Bronze Age morality aside.
The objective truth is out there in archaeological sites, waiting to be found. If I were to arrive at conclusions based on Judeo-Christian texts and reject scientifically tested evidence (data) as wrong because it conflicts with biblical mythology, then I'm not interested in an objective truth, but, rather, a mythical truth.
Skinwalker-That makes good sense. What parts of mythology that there is found objective evidence for are acceptable? The Bible, for example, is a compilation of theoretically historical texts. Some evidence exists of places and people having been found to exist in history and in the bible. Why can't biblical reference be used to support theory?
*************
M*W: From what I understood Skinwalker to say, the buzz word is "embellishments."
To that I would say that mythical sources, like the bible, are best used as places for questions rather than answers. For instance, the book of Joshua mentions several place names, one of them being Jericho. Does Jericho exist and, if so, was it destroyed at around the same period as is mentioned in Joshua.
As it turns out, Jericho existed. It wasn't, however, destroyed when Joshua says it was.
This is consistent with the theory of embellishing real histories to create new mythologies.
Huh? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. Here it is again:
Originally Posted by Baron Max
Do you believe in "love"? "Compassion"? "Empathy"? Do you believe in any of the human emotions? And if so, on what scientific evidence do you base those beliefs?
So? If religious beliefs are denied because of scientific evidence, how can we still believe in things like those noted above?
Baron Max
Skinwalker-has it been considered that the city could have been resettled on top of the old foundations? The biblical tale that I recall only speaks of the walls falling.
To be honest, I'm far more interested in Sodom and Gomorrah, and perhaps any evidence of a 40 year nomadic trek through the Sinai. I understand there have been some recent developments on the south shore of the Dead Sea.
In my bible thread, one of the things I was hoping would be discussed is the "address" of the garden of eden as given. Always thought it would be interesting to look at the ancient names of places and find eden in central Africa or something.
To be honest, I'm far more interested in Sodom and Gomorrah, and perhaps any evidence of a 40 year nomadic trek through the Sinai. I understand there have been some recent developments on the south shore of the Dead Sea.
In my bible thread, one of the things I was hoping would be discussed is the "address" of the garden of eden as given. Always thought it would be interesting to look at the ancient names of places and find eden in central Africa or something.
Love , compassion, and empathy are all human constructs like religion. There's evidence for their existence in the same way we have evidence for religion: by observing human behaviour. Claims about love, compassion, and empathy are just as question-worthy as claims about religion.
Most settlements through antiquity and today are on top of prior settlements. Nearly every excavation site is spoke of in layers, like Jericho IV. There was a wall at Jericho, but one that was far, far earlier than Joshua's alleged campaign and it was a low wall. Various theories among archaeologists is that it could have been to protect against periodic flooding or to keep livestock in. Or both. Either way, the remains of the wall are not suggestive of fortification since it was not very high.
I'm not aware of any recent research that supports either of these as real place-names. There have been several 'biblical-archaeologists' that have sought to 'prove' these as real places, but, again, they're beginning with conclusions more than they are questions. It seems more likely, and it hardly detracts from the literary value of the myth to admit, that these are metaphorical and allegorical places rather than real.
I've got some thoughts on eden based on earlier sumerian myths but for another time . my battery is about to die.
There's no evidence for this statement
and what do you use as a neutral control group for human behaviour?
only if you think soft science has the same basis as hard science because they both use the word "science"
Q
want is the operative word
In summary-There is biased and unbiased evidence. biased evidence is that which can be dismissed, whereas unbiased evidence is that which is worthy of study and citation. So, wouldn't all unbiased evidence be, by nature, biased against 'religious mythology'?