Scientists and scholars refute the Bible

[Diogenes' Dog]

No - the very assumption of God's existence is still irrational.
Making the irrational belief an assumption rather than a belief does not make the actual belief less irrational.
Remember, I/we are talking about the actual "belief in God". You either believe in the existence of, believe in the non-existence of, or don't believe.

Belief (or unbelief) in God is not irrational i.e. contradicting reason.
It is non-rational i.e. not based on or deduced from reason.

I've used the analogy of Columbus setting sail from Tierra del Fuego (The End of the World) before. It was not irrational for him to set out, but he took a risk having no way of knowing he would discover America. So it is with theism. So often it is in science too.

If you were Columbus, you would no doubt have stayed put until someone else brought you evidence that America existed (a can of Coke or a BigMac perhaps ). My argument is that you may need to go out and search as Columbus did - this is rational. It means active experiment with unlikely (what you are incorrectly calling irrational) possibilities. I would agree with what dattaswami said using the similar analogy of a river...

A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only.

In this case the conclusion ("God") is irrational - as there are other explanations (not necessarily fully understood yet by science) that do not require the existence of some God character - and under Occam's Razor this would then deem the "God" explanation irrational.

I do agree that the idea of what constitutes "evidence" might be subjective - but evidence in these matters, due to the extraordinary nature of the claim (God's existence) MUST be beyond scrutiny and thus MUST be as objective as possible.

Only when someone who claims a subjective experience )that they might consider to be the work of "God") has ruled out EVERY possible alternative should they then start looking elsewhere.

For explanations of physical phenomena in the extended physical world, I would agree. However, most people who have profound "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences are in no doubt about their authenticity or source. It often radically changes their outlook and personality (in fact that I would say differentiates a true spiritual experience from e.g. LSD). How you explain them all depends on your choice of worldview. If you are a materialist, you must BELIEVE that all phenomenon are reducable to a physical explanation. However, I think this does not explain the change in people who undergo such experiences.

Heidegger powerfully argues that "reality" is not an objectified scientific model of the world we construct in our heads, but is our lived subjective experience as "Dasein" - beings in the world.

P.S. (late edit) Just seen an interesting article on a similar topic at http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/monsma.html

It also depends on what one's definition of "God" is - as I know many on this site consider "self" to be God - in which case the label of "God" is just, IMO, unhelpful semantics for a natural phenomenum.

It's not unhelpful. It says much about the transendental nature of the "self", and the ultimate nature of our being.

As for the link between religion and happiness - I could cite individuals I know that gain a great deal of happiness from it that I doubt they could get anywhere else - but that was never in question.

You still claimed: "...we have not discovered a method to find joy, peace of mind, love or fulfillment in life other than through some religious belief." It was, and still is, this statement that I have issue with - as it is claiming that the only way to discover joy, peace of mind, love etc is through religious belief.
And on this I still ask for evidence - not that religious belief offers this, as I don't doubt it, but that this is the ONLY thing that can do it, as you seemed to claim.

I think perhaps you could come up with some evidence that science or philosophy etc. HAVE provided such methods.

 

[Provita]

*************
M*W: Yes, Provita, you are more on track than the christians. It was considered to be the Sea of Reeds, but unfortunately, archeologists didn't find anything there either. Incidentally, those people were nomads, so yes they would have 'wandered' and spent several generations wandering in the desert, so that was no feat in itself. There were said to be following a 'wandering star' or movement of a planet. The same with the story of the Magi. Neither were they real people. They are considered the three stars in Orion's belt. However, I still contend that the entirety of the bible, what's not poetry, is astrology.

Well yes, thats the only problem with that theory... no evidence... but i recently watched several videos about 6 months ago talking about the exodus and a spot on the map where it is believed the corssing has taken place... and by cameras submerged in the water there is no definite evidence of a crossing... but oddly enough it is the ONLY place crossable by foot, granted it "dried up" or the water was "split" or whatnot. And they have taken some pictures of coral reef in the shapes of wheels and spokes... the wheels having 8 and 4 (or 8 and 6, forgot) spokes, which was a characteristic of egyptian chariots of the time... but the video didnt say any more, and i dont know when the video was made... sorry, ill try and find out...

And yes, you could make an argument, a very good one at that, that the bible is astrological 9and obviously also poetic in some areas), but some of it contains the history of the Jews, along with "praise God for beating the assyrians" and whatnot, but that doesnt disprove they beat the assyrians... and i also have done research on symbols and their techniques based on = methods used by mythology rather than astrology... two so far that i deeply believe are pure symbol in the New Testament, and there are LOADS in the old testament...

But dont get me wrong, im a christian... im just not a fundamentalist and i dont take all the bible literally... so dont dare say i dont believe in evolution

Keep the good topics up Medicine Woman!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Well yes, thats the only problem with that theory... no evidence... but i recently watched several videos about 6 months ago talking about the exodus and a spot on the map where it is believed the corssing has taken place... and by cameras submerged in the water there is no definite evidence of a crossing... but oddly enough it is the ONLY place crossable by foot, granted it "dried up" or the water was "split" or whatnot. And they have taken some pictures of coral reef in the shapes of wheels and spokes... the wheels having 8 and 4 (or 8 and 6, forgot) spokes, which was a characteristic of egyptian chariots of the time... but the video didnt say any more, and i dont know when the video was made... sorry, ill try and find out...

And yes, you could make an argument, a very good one at that, that the bible is astrological 9and obviously also poetic in some areas), but some of it contains the history of the Jews, along with "praise God for beating the assyrians" and whatnot, but that doesnt disprove they beat the assyrians... and i also have done research on symbols and their techniques based on = methods used by mythology rather than astrology... two so far that i deeply believe are pure symbol in the New Testament, and there are LOADS in the old testament...

But dont get me wrong, im a christian... im just not a fundamentalist and i dont take all the bible literally... so dont dare say i dont believe in evolution

Keep the good topics up Medicine Woman!

*************
M*W: We've discussed that same video on this forum... the one about the coral reef on ancient Egyptian chariot wheels, and it proved to be a fake. I believe it was one of Ron Wyatt's famous finds! (That's actually saying a lot, because he claimed to have also found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Jesus' foreskin, among other famous relics). http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-05.htm

However, this site, http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/, shows us the truth about Ron Wyatt's discoveries.

Thanks, Provita, for your comment. How are things going in New Orleans? I'm just off I-10 West in Houston.

 

[Provita]

Houston? Wow, didnt know you were so close (i heard ur crime rate shot up when some people evacuated there, sorry)... its messy here, as always after the storm, but we're pulling through lol.

Anyways, I didnt know that video was a fake... interesting... it might have been a different video, i really cant say... thx for the info!

 

[Sarkus]

Belief (or unbelief) in God is not irrational i.e. contradicting reason.

Believing in the existence of ANYTHING without evidence IS IRRATIONAL. It contradicts reason to have a belief that one thing exists when there are an infinite number of other things for which there is no evidence and which are not believed in. It is IRRATIONAL.

It is non-rational i.e. not based on or deduced from reason.

It might well be, but it is irrational as well.

Getting from point A to point B might be based on evidence/reason (rational) or intuition (non-rational).
But if point B is an irrational view-point, then it is irrational.

You seem to be describing the journey from A to B - one of intuition, for example.
I am describing point B. Which is irrational due to the lack of evidence.

I've used the analogy of Columbus setting sail from Tierra del Fuego (The End of the World) before. It was not irrational for him to set out, but he took a risk having no way of knowing he wouldiscover America. So it is with theism. So often it is in science too.

False analogy.
There was no "absolute belief" in the existence of America.
Columbus thought there was a possibility (perhaps remote) and was driven by the journey, the reward, the adventure.
This is entirely rational and drives the majority of scientific discoveries.
To believe in God is to believe with no evidence.

If you were Columbus, you would no doubt have stayed put until someone else brought you evidence that America existed (a can of Coke or a BigMac perhaps ).

Maybe until they declared war on me?

My argument is that you may need to go out and search as Columbus did - this is rational. It means active experiment with unlikely (what you are incorrectly calling irrational) possibilities.

I do not call experimentation for "unlikely possibilities" irrational. I merely call the "belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence" irrational.

And as stated, most scientific discoveries are driven by the same driving forces behind Columbus' ventures.

It's not unhelpful. It says much about the transendental nature of the "self", and the ultimate nature of our being.

My point is that the word "God" is unhelpful - and confuses the issue that a discussion of "self" otherwise entails - due to the often highly personalised usage and understanding of the term "God".
If someone wishes to discuss "self" then discuss "self" - do not discuss "God".

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Believing in the existence of ANYTHING without evidence IS IRRATIONAL. It contradicts reason to have a belief that one thing exists when there are an infinite number of other things for which there is no evidence and which are not believed in. It is IRRATIONAL.

There is much evidence for God, but (as I think you admitted) it's subjective!
Answered prayer, dramatic personal growth, psychological healing, synchronicity, experiences of a loving presence, new insights and awareness, feelings of joy associated with God, increased peace in life etc. all mount up to a substantial weight of subjective evidence to justify belief - but none of it open to "objective" scientific peer review. That means it is not irrational.

Perhaps all you can say is "something strange and wonderful is going on in my life and it seems to be associated with my becoming a theist"!

You would need to concoct a very elaborate & unwieldy theory to explain these experiences in physical or psychological terms. The best I know of is Jung's transpersonal "Self" in the collective unconscious - it is probaby where (agnostic) humanists and theists come closest to agreeing.

False analogy.
There was no "absolute belief" in the existence of America.
Columbus thought there was a possibility (perhaps remote) and was driven by the journey, the reward, the adventure.This is entirely rational and drives the majority of scientific discoveries. To believe in God is to believe with no evidence.

The analogy is good, let me show you.
Story 1: Imagine, it is 1492. You are aware of stories of land beyond the edge of the known world. They are anecdotal, and often differ and conflict, but about some key things they agree. So, you decide to find out for yourself. People tell you that you are irrational, that you will fall off the edge of the world, that occams razor dictates that the more likely theory is there's nothing there. Despite this you use all your money to build a ship, and set sail West. It IS a risk, you may be wrong and find nothing. However, after a while you may spot seagulls, or even an island, and eventually you may find a new continent. When you return of course, no-one believes you. How can there be anything beyond the known world?

Story 2:Imagine, it is 2006. You are aware of stories from friends etc. and in various ancient texts of people who have experienced great changes in their lives after finding "God". They are anecdotal, and often differ and conflict, but about some key things they agree. So, you decide to find out for yourself. People tell you that you are irrational, that you will become a stupid bible-basher like GWB, that occams razor dictates that the rational theory is there's nothing there anyway. Despite feeling they might be right you determine to find out, and start reading about these experiences and texts, and even start to meditate, or pray or reach out to this alleged transcendant being. It IS a risk, you may be wrong and find nothing. However, after a while you notice you enjoy the meditation etc., and discover a new peace in your life. Prayers start to be answered in strange ways. Meaningful coincidences happen. Eventually, you become aware of a presence, and a new awareness of things and of yourself. However, no-one will believe you - you have crossed the line into irrationality. How can there be anything beyond the known world demonstrated by science?

And as stated, most scientific discoveries are driven by the same driving forces behind Columbus' ventures.

I agree totally. They are about exploration into the unknown.

 

[Sarkus]

There is much evidence for God, but (as I think you admitted) it's subjective!

And it would be in the interpretation of the subjective experience where the irrationality would lie - in accepting a "God did it" answer over anything else.
Where the theist might stop short of fully investigating and saying "It's a religious experience - let's leave it at that", the rational would try and explore it fully, if they want, and only when everything possible is excluded would they look at anything else. Even if they do not explore fully and merely wants to accept the experience, they would not "believe" it to be anything mystical / spiritual etc.

Perhaps all you can say is "something strange and wonderful is going on in my life and it seems to be associated with my becoming a theist"!

And the rational would say that it is a psychological benefit, fully explainable (given sufficient time and study).

You would need to concoct a very elaborate & unwieldy theory to explain these experiences in physical or psychological terms. The best I know of is Jung's transpersonal "Self" in the collective unconscious - it is probaby where (agnostic) humanists and theists come closest to agreeing.

But even an very elaborate and unwieldy theory is rational compared to the irrationality of a belief for which there is no evidence.

Don't get me wrong - the vey possibility of God, to some, might be worth conisdering - for whatever reasons.
But it is the actual belief in that God that is irrational - unless there is some evidence.

The analogy is good, let me show you.
Story 1: Imagine, it is 1492. You are aware of stories of land beyond the edge of the known world. They are anecdotal, and often differ and conflict, but about some key things they agree. So, you decide to find out for yourself. People tell you that you are irrational, that you will fall off the edge of the world, that occams razor dictates that the more likely theory is there's nothing there. Despite this you use all your money to build a ship, and set sail West. It IS a risk, you may be wrong and find nothing. However, after a while you may spot seagulls, or even an island, and eventually you may find a new continent. When you return of course, no-one believes you. How can there be anything beyond the known world?

The analogy is not good.
You are still talking about the search - not the end result.
The search is, as stated, perfectly valid, whether reasoned or un-reasoned, and to be applauded if the person feels they need to try.

But the analogy falls down in that the end result IS PROVABLE - and evidence now exists.
GOD IS NOT provable. As a result it is not a viable theory.

Story 2:Imagine, it is 2006. You are aware of stories from friends etc. and in various ancient texts of people who have experienced great changes in their lives after finding "God". They are anecdotal, and often differ and conflict, but about some key things they agree. So, you decide to find out for yourself.

Again - there is no problem with searching if one feels the need to.

People tell you that you are irrational

They would be wrong. You would only be irrational if you actually BELIEVED in the existence of whatever it was. What you are searching for is the evidence - and that is good.
What often then happens is that the search itself becomes fulfilling - but that does not make the belief in God, or whatever it is, not irrational.

I fear you are confusing the journey, the search, with the belief itself.

How can there be anything beyond the known world demonstrated by science?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, so if the following is not where you were heading, apologies:

There are many things outside science's reach - and because science can't reach them, nor can we.
If we can - science can (not does, but can, taken to its absolute).

If it exists in this universe then it must interact.
If it interacts it is measurable.

There are possibly things that exist that are outside of this universe - things we will never, and can never, know.
And due to its unknowable nature - it would be irrational to believe that anything specific does exist outside.

Belief without evidence is irrational.
Belief with evidence is just a question of probability.

 

[Gordon]

*************
M*W: Just about every story in the bible (O&NT) has been refuted by scientific discovery (or the lack thereof), and bookstores and libraries are rife with the publication of their studies. That means to me that everything in the bible is false. Why, then, do christians not know about recent studies such as the finding (or lack thereof) an historical Exodus, for example? If there was no Exodus, then there is no manna from heaven, so that story discounts another story. These falsehoods beget other falsehoods, and the the whole shebang turns out to be all lies. I just don't understand why christians continue to believe. Is it that they don't read-up on the scholarly research? Do they just have lollipops for heads (i.e. suckers)? Why is it so hard to get through to christians? Are they really THAT dependent on the belief of eternal life, or are they just afraid they might make Jesus angry? What is it with those christians?

Once upon a time,

There was no matter or energy in the universe. Then there was a fluctuation of some sort and then all matter and energy came into existence or became apparent in the fluctuation whilst the total still remained overall at zero (take your pick!).

This happened without any directed input and so there was no information present.

The matter coalesced into the universe of stars and planets, again without direct input, design or information.

On at least one of the planets, again without direct input, design or information, non-living matter became living matter with a vast amount of encoded information being incorporated within the DNA and other structure of the living cell.

Over time, again without direct input, design or information from outside the information content increased vastly and these simple single cell creatures changed into more complex ones with much longer DNA codes and many more specialised cell functions with all the necessary information encoded within.

Eventually again without direct input, design or information from outside, beings came into existence with incredibly complex information systems, the power of creative thought, the power to devise music, poetry, to love, laugh and of course the ability to contemplate and discuss their own origins.

And there is proof that all this happened as stated, because Richard Dawkins has remarked that however improbable, it must have happened - because we are here now!

Conclusions that can be drawn from this hypothesis are that the principles of Information Theory are completely wrong and that 'Chance' is not just a useful mathematical description of phenomena but is instead a causative force which actually makes thing happen (someone can describe its physical characteristics for me no doubt!).

As a thinking rational person, is this really the most logical story to believe or is this more likely to be a collection of man made myths?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hello Sarkus,

You may want to take up Gordon's point above, as I've said all I have to say.

For me, the search IS the journey. God will never be rationally provable (or disprovable), but to continue the experiment is what faith (trust) is. Belief is a working hypothesis. We will have to agree to disagree about whether this is irrational! In fact no theory in science is provable - it's one of the definitions (Popper's falsifiability)!

The part I haven't mentioned is the internal impulse towards theism. If you have this, it is not satisfied by anything else. It belongs in the realm of intuition or feeling rather than intellect. It is only as irrational as e.g. poetry (try and prove rationally what is good about a poem!).

Emerson's "Nature" expresses it, also Wordsworth's "Intimations of Immortality". The best and original is the Plato's Cave analogy in Book 7 of "The Republic". It is the intuition that there is a greater reality, of which we see only shadows, but in order to see, we must turn around and look. If you don't have such a feeling - you probably wonder what the fuss is all about!

Best wishes... DD

P.S. I found this in a series of lectures about philosophy and religion by Prof. Phillip Cary...

“Reformed” epistemology is a recent philosophical movement which defends the rationality of religious beliefs. For instance, Nicholas Wolterstorff criticizes the “evidentialist” view that it is irrational to believe something without evidence or proof. Alvin Plantinga criticizes the epistemology of “classical foundationalism” (which assumes that all beliefs must be based on a narrow foundation of certainty) and argues that religious beliefs are “properly basic,” i.e., need not be based on (or proved by) more certain beliefs. William Alston argues that the religious experiences people have within particular traditions are analogous to basic perceptual beliefs—they do not need to be based on other beliefs, but rather provide a basis for other beliefs.