Claims, demands, and perspective
Dan--
The validity of the Bible in what respect? Because it reports miracles that you don't believe would happen it cannot be credible?
Is the Bible
merely an account of miracles? Is there nothing more to it? More to the point:
* If I claim to have performed a miracle, and say nothing more, then it is up to you to believe with little or no consequence to your benefit.
* What, however, if I claim to perform a miracle, and demand that you pay me homage in the form of prayers, and change your mode of living to suit my preferences and my benefit?
If I
claim the miracle and
demand a tribute, should I not be able to demonstrate my claim? If I then
promise a reward, or
threaten punishment based on your reaction to my
claim and
demand, ought not that
claim be supported by
evidence that
justifies the
demand?
If something gets uncanny truths correct centuries before they are discovered by science, then wouldn't supernatural knowledge be needed?
Which uncanny claims? That one can cure illness by driving out demons? To the other, I have before at Sciforums made the assertion that religion is like pre-science. (Not
prescience.) That is, religion is a method for describing how people perceive reality that does not catalog observations according to the scientific method. Religion, therefore, is subject to a certain degree of tinkering, but we can leave that for another time, if you like. (I am presently unable the transition from superstition to politics; that is, from lightning being a god to the political power of religious sentiment as seen in pharoahs or early Popes; at some point, exploitation of the fear that inspires religious superstitions becomes intentional. But traditional rites extracted by modern Wiccans from the shadows of history do resemble primitive psychological manipulation, and certainly we don't find ancient herbalism "uncanny", despite the fact that shamans and witches were using aspirin long before it was "discovered". So on the one hand, I'm wondering,
What uncanny claims? while the other half wonders if maybe you aren't referring to the efficacy of an organized canon compared to loosely assembled traditions.
If something is accurate and trustworthy as a historical document with every verifiable fact, does that mean nothing?
The vagaries of history are certainly interesting challenges to work around. If we look at a document like the colonial American Declaration of Independence, we might call it valid as a document, but nowhere in there do we glean an absolute truth. A census record from long ago will tell us how many people were counted; we cannot imagine that census records were any more accurate than they are today, and nobody ever asserts it. If we look, for instance, at the Bible, we can either accept its veracity or not. On the pro side are the scrolls and information collected through the archaeological record. On the con side is the human factor, and I'm not even referring to the King James Version; rather, I point to the various bishops and whatnot involved in the selection of the Hebrew Scriptures combined with the four recognized gospels and the various epistles. Certainly the reason for setting the canon this way made sense to these people, but for the same subjective reasons that the Bible may make sense to you but not to me. It is a subjective assessment, and here is where the veracity of the Bible collapses; much of what the Christians strove to erase as heretical was only heretical because it challenged the authoritarian structure of the young church. Protestants, for instance, have done little to change the Bible that they inherited from Catholocism; by and large, they've merely removed a few books from it. What has
not been done is the complete reassembly of all of the texts we have, reassessment of their merits, and reconstruction of a new canon. Thus, to match the current Bible to its ancient forerunners accomplishes little, except to declare that it's a pretty good translation. In the end, though, it says nothing about whether the stories actually reflect the true history they describe, and that comparison is left to faith. Well, that and the sword, the rack, the glowing pins ... it was a tough, military and political fight that made so much of the world accept the Bible--that in itself is an interesting historical facet.
And God's existance isn't normally what is in question, so it is not normally the response.
Why would a Christian question God's existence if they already
believe in faith that He does? To view the theism and superstition of the world in general, an acknowledgement that there are unanswered questions does not equal God. And, as we see from the world itself, God does not necessarily equal the God of the Bible. God's existence is severely in question; the Christians, however, ignore the issues because their faith tells them it's not a relevant question, and thus it is never addressed except to reinforce the faith notion that God exists as described in the Bible.
The fact that there are so many accurate, fine-tunings in the universe, and the fact that thinking beings exist and have some weird desire to worship some form of supernatural being and wonder about an afterlife does point strongly to a supernatural being tweaking the universe and mankind for both man's and God's benefit. The opposing view of blind chance somehow creating these things is far more questionable in the light of these facts.
Pure-D faith. I could easily say that the intricacy of the Universe is wholly possible given the infinite potential, the balance of matter and energy,
ad nauseam. I have claimed before, and still hold that Life as we know it is a statistical necessity of the Universe.
God is simply a more elegant solution.
And here we see the need for God in the modern day: aesthetics.
God is simply a
more comforting solution.
The simple difference is that the idea of God is more personable than a cold, mechanical Universe.
thanx,
Tiassa
