851. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150496 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 2:19 am

And them tossing out someone who happened to be in the film (under false pretenses) toots a big horn for the whopper-tude of their lie.

How about actually debunking the film say by having educators making a rebuttal in the media instead of keep banging on PZ being booted out?

There is just so much whining one can take. For people who are open to creationist persuasions this would do nothing to educate or persuade them, it just comes across as a story of gossips and a battle of inflated egos (both PZ's and those responsible for the decision to kick him out) This is just juvenile.

Focus on the message, not the personalities.

EDIT

Heard that they are going to put up an hour long discussion between RD and PZ over the incident here. More he says she says and for a whole bloody hour! The fan boys and girls no doubt are salivating for it.

Oh, brother, spare me.

852. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150485 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:55 am

WE ARE A POSITIVE FORCE FOR HUMANITY, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

I am beginning to doubt the second statement.

853. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150482 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:45 am

Holy Mary virgin mother of Christ, how many threads do they want to create out of a non story? No one likes being kicked out of a movie, but c'mon now, isn't it a bit narcissistic to keep talking about it forever? Get a grip.

Sorry for being so negative, just can't stand the herd mentality being on displayed on these threads lately.

P.S. Can't stand PZ either, what an egomaniac.

854. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150293 by Bonzai on March 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Rod the farmer,

Some months ago I sold a car I had owned for years. The person who purchased it, possibly a muslim, came to pick it up and brought several young children. One of them was a girl of perhaps seven. She wore a headscarf. I was uncomfortable seeing her, and only after the deal was done did I consider that I might have refused to sell him the car, based on his treatment of his daughter.

Comments please. I was thinking at the time that I perhaps should have "stood up/come out" and made it clear I thought it was reprehensible to force his child into a faith before she was even mature enough to understand what he had signed her up for.

If you "stood up to the father" and refused to sell him the car, you might have been dragged to a human right tribunal and be tarred and feathered as a racist and Islamophobe. You picture might be all over the newspapers too.

855. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149553 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 10:55 pm

whatever pattern or phenomenon only appears at higher levels is thus interest relative - like value-judgements of art or meaning. Which means it is not intrinsic, not objective - there is no "objective matter of fact" about it

I disagree.

Would you say genes are not objective and only a description at the level of quarks is "objective"? How do you understand a vortex in fluid systems by looking at molecules? How about pattern formations in biological and chemical systems in terms of kinetic theory of atoms? Relationships and patterns may emerge only at a higher level of descriptions. The whole is more than the sum total of the parts.

But interestingly - it wouldn't be that hard to program software that can identify a pointilist painting as a pointilist painting by analyzing a digital picture of it - or a cubist painting etc.

Because the programmer does realize there is a higher level of description, and you, the person who read the output, do realize they are not just random splashes of dots!

You cannot derive an appreciation of the quality - since that is interest relative, not objective.

What is "objective"? Is a tornado objective enough? It is just molecular movement at a low level and so is a can of hot gas. You lose information by looking at something at the wrong level. There are different questions to be asked at different levels and they are all valid.

Because of that, "my" theory need not be concerned with how "good" the painting "is", because "good" in this case doesn't refer to functional adequacy, but to subjective or intersubjective judgement.

Then your theory is inappropriate for valid questions that can be raised at that level, just like it is not the fault of biology that looking at quarks doesn't help in understanding evolution.

Particle physics, while in some sense more "fundamental", is the "wrong" theory to answer questions at the level of biological evolution. Not that the theory is wrong, but the particle physicist who tries to use it on biology is wrong, and the guy would be even more wrong to insist that biology is just an illusion with no "objective" existence.

Edit I think you are trying to define a problem away by declaring it "not objective" simply because your theory doesn't yield answers. All the fancy words basically are brutal attempts to collapse and flatten all levels into one and then declare all the information that has been lost in the process "un objective", I am afraid that is kind of a cheap way to get answers.

856. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149549 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Mphil,

If you mean classical "uncaused, spontaneous causation" free will - I don't agree... but I have stated so in another post ... I think.

Do we know what these words mean? I don't think we do.

Uncaused things do exist, wave function collapse. I know that indeterminism in itself doesn't produce willful behaviour.

But what is the connection between random and non random? Are they mutually exclusive categories?

Here is an idea you may find interesting. Classical physics appears to be orderly exactly because quantum mechanics is genuinely random. Individual random events obey no rule, but in aggregate they are describable by the simple rules of probability, Classical mechanics obeys orderly laws exactly because the quantum world underneath is random, genuine randomness produces simple probability distributions. It wouldn't be the case if the dice are loaded, so to speak.

have also stated that I think there is no inherent, intrinsic "meaning

Meaning is what we ascribe to the world. I never says otherwise. But it is important to us.

Also, I think you've got it somehow backwards. I think intentionality is more basic than "meaning", since the latter depends on the former. But maybe I have misread you and you did state this.

I did say meaning depends on intentionality.

Anyway - my point: incompatibilistic "uncaused spontaneous causation"-free will is not required for intentionality, in fact it would make it impossible, since a system of whose states none is caused by the "outside world" cannot have representations, since they have to have a causal connection to what is being represented.

What if the systems are coupled to the environment in a way which is not completely deterministic, yet not completely uncaused? There is no reason why it has to be one way or the other all the way.

857. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149542 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Mphil,

I'd say that depends what you mean by it. Our phenomenological experience is evident - but evidence for nothing beyond that. The (pre)theoretical notions, "explanations" and inferences many many people draw from this are at best extremely underdetermined by the fact that we have phenomenological experience, at worst they are deluded.

If you read my whole post you would know that I didn't use that to make any truth claim. But as a way to show that jac's parallelism between "God" and free will doesn't hold up.

My own opinion is that "the truth" doesn't matter. "Deluded" may be, but there is no way you can persuade yourself to give up the "delusion" of having free will even if you try. You can live without God, but you can't live like a zombie and be aware of it. It is a contradiction,

"Truth" is overrated sometimes. If the truth says that meanings is a delusion,--as it would follow if agency and intentions are all delusions, then truth itself would have no meaning either.

When people talk about "Truth" with a big T they seem to forget that we process the world through our subjective mind ultimately, We are not some objective, data processing machines hovering "out there" working only on logic and disembodied "reason". Such a thing would not have any need for meaning, and science would be irrelevant to it as well.

P.S. Another point, subjective data may be delusions, but you are trying to argue that they must be and therefore should be dismissed if they don't fit into your theories. I think this is overstating your case,--if I understand you correctly. Just because your theory cannot handle such data it doesn't mean it is not valid. It is possible that you can't derive higher level descriptions from theories that address lower level phenomena, just as you cannot develop a theory of art by looking at the arrangement of painted dots on a canvas, The picture only "exists" at a higher level of description,

858. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149533 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Jac,

BTW, if there is no free will, there will be no agency, no sense of talking about intension, hence no meanings because meanings is only meaningful to intentional agents that can ascribe it and grasp it.

So in that event "truth", science, beauty and everything that Dawkins and indeed humanity hold dear would lose their meanings as well.

Rejecting God will not lead to nihilism, but rejecting freewill will definitely do that, So what is a truth that has no meaning to us? If we need the "illusion" of dualism in order to maintain this fiction I will go for it, though I don't think it will necessarily come to that.

So, yes, I am very unDawkinian on this, Believe in beliefs is not always a dirty word, not in this instance. But it wouldn't be necessary to invent any "belief" consciously, it is our default mode to act as if free will exists anyway no matter what philosophies say. We cannot be persuaded by "reason" to give up the "illusion" of free will any more than we can be persuaded to stop breathing.

Again your parallel with God breaks down here, You can give up God, but you cannot give up that feeling of having free will even if you try

859. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149528 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Jac,

I don't think whether it is "true" that we have free will is of any relevance to how we live, see point 2. And just by way of clarification, I am not a Dawkinian, so I am fine with not agreeing with his line of argument.

However, my main point was simply that the parallel you draw between God and free will doesn't quite hold up. This is regardless of what I think whether free will exists or not,

Also, I didn't use a majority argument, There maybe a Christian majority, but it doesn't mean that all of them experience some God's presence in a visceral level, in fact I would say they don't. See point 1 above. On the other hand, feeling you have free will is not a matter of choice, it is like you don't choose to experience consciousness.The feeling of free will is intrinsic, while that of God's presence is not, hence no parallelism regardless of what one may make of the intrinsic feelings of free will.

EDIT For God, the reality question can in principle be assessed depending on the precise conception of your God and its reality or not would make a difference. But for "free will" it is probably like qualia and the answer doesn't matter one whit as to how you would live.

860. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149525 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Goldy,

I just edited my post. Maybe that answers you a bit better? I don't know.

861. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149520 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Goldy,

Chinese of course do believe they have free will, without it they'll be zombies. The question of how to exercise it under a situation may be different among cultures. For example, if your clan elder harasses you, do you exercise your free will to beat the shit out of him and risk being ostracized later, or exercise your free will to swallow it? That sort of things.

EDIT I think I see what you are getting at, being fatalistic, as in believing in destiny or astrology, is different from saying that free will doesn't exist, in context it seems to mean we are just some kind of automatons and agency of any kind is an illusion. So you may think you choose to pick up the cup and take a sip of the coffee, but that is actually pre-programmed at the body level, it is an illusion that you have made a choice. That is how I understand it anyway,

862. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149510 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Jac

Interesting posts,

I see what you're getting at. However, there are a few problems in your attempt to paint a parallel between free will and god.

1) The feeling of having free will is universal, indeed one cannot imagine not having it anymore than one can pretend that he is not conscious,

But the "God feeling" is not, In fact it is a fleeting thing even for many believers, "Faith" is not just "believing without evidence" , but the ongoing process to convince, persuade and negotiate with oneself to believe in spite of the absence of evidence or the presence of apparently contradicting evidence,-- that includes the subjective feeling of disbelief. Mother Theresa was a case in point,

All religions have rituals to "arouse" or enhance that feeling of God's presence in believers and that include prayers, music and sacrements, So the belief in God while "natural" in a certain sense,--I know some would disagree so I have to qualify it,-- it is not visceral like free will, it needs to be enhanced and reinforced artificially, both for individuals and societies.

We cannot say "scientifically" whether free will truly exists or not, but we live with the feeling that it does every waking moment. It is not like God. "Sacred moments" are rare, some religious people spend their whole life in search of it. The onus of proof would be different in the two cases.

2) What difference does it make to you whether in some abstract sense free will exists or not as you experience life? None! There is, hence, a good reason to ignore philosophy and even science and live as though you are a free agent. I believe this was Jean Paul Sarte's point.

Philosophies come and go but our experience would be exactly the same as it is, we will act and have to act as though we have free will no matter what the philosophers say.Theories are always tentative, the phenomenological data is compelling and even more, we cannot detach from it, it is our very being!

The same cannot be said about God.

If there is a God, it has to have some kind of external reality apart from ourselves, it is not a phantom glued to us like a shadow. Most theists would think that their Gods do leave some kind of footprint in the world, That means we can indeed try to ask for evidence and "objective",third person kind questions that science is able to answer in principle, But whether free will or qualia exist, is a bit like trying to look into one's own eyes, without a mirror.

Both theists and atheists agree that believing is an act of decision,--perhaps based on free will,-- and it does have an effect on how you live your life, for better or for worse. The parallelism with free will doesn't hold up.

P.S.

The conceptions of God vary across cultures and civilizations. I think a closer parallel with free will can indeed be made for a kind of mystical God, which is not external to us. For example, some beliefs hold that our consciousness is actually a bit of God's mind trapped in our bodies and we are a part of a cosmic consciousness, We can only "know" God through introspections because in a sense we are it even though without realizing, just like we instinctively act as though we have free will.

863. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149402 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I think you can make the case that the entire goal of science is to explain phenomena in terms that are more basic than that which is being explained.

I make the case that science is not always relevant because it is not "explanation" that you seek. Do you have to mentally go through your digestive process in order to enjoy a good meal? I suggest that exercise would ruin your appetite pretty quickly.

To take the opposite viewpoint is not tenable

Oh, really? How do you explain global pattern formation entirely in terms of its constituents? The sum is more than the parts. How do you explain the vortices in a fluid by looking at molecues? At each level there are new emergent phenomena whose descriptions may not be reducible to lower levels except in a rather trivial sense,

I still want to read your response as to why science can't speak to such things as literature and poetry.

Your answers would miss the point for the kind of questions that a poet or a literary critic would ask. Your "explanations" answer the wrong questions, To presume that there is only the kind of questions and science always has the appropriate answers is "vulgar".

Life is not just about getting "explanations" and your explanations may turn out to be totally wrong (speculations by Churchland Dennett et al)

864. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149391 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

roboholic

Poetry is composed of complex patterns of literary structure designed so as to evoke emotional responses. The fact that individuals have emotional responses and that the poet shares the same emotional propositions is also scientifically verifiable. Patricia Churchland and Zoltán Kövecses both have great papers that pretty much make the case that emotions are biologically derived and thus explainable in scientific terms.

It was a trick question. I expect such a stupid answer from the vulgar reductionists.

People who read poetry and listen to music want the experience, not your "explanations". Explanation is not always what people seek, that was the point of my post.

Telling you TV images are formed by electrons hitting the screen and showing you complicated diagrams aren't going to replace the experience of watching your favourite show, and is quite irrelevant to it,

865. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149383 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Roboholic

2 Timothy 3:16- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Well who wrote this? That guy wasn't Jesus was he?

:)

866. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149374 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

TCT

Everything else that claims knowledge of the world without submitting itself to interrogation by the scientific method of inquiry can safely be ignored.

Not all religious people claim "knowledge of the world". Some have an almost literary belief in God (Bunting, Hedges), which strictly is just a poetic shorthand of their subjective experience and feelings, it is not a "theory" to explain anything in the physical world, "God is a verb", as Chris Hedges said. These believers can be at most accused of reification, If you believe in the Denett-Churcland school of cognitive science it is probably a sin on a par with people who believe in qualia. Not a major sin IMO.

What does the scientific method have to say about literature and poetry?

867. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149357 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm

TCT,

I am not religious, I am just making a point because steve and steveN here are trying to argue that there is some merit in being a fundamentalist,--"intellectual honesty" which means an absence of intellect, as it turns out.

868. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149352 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Spreading the view that condoms aren't effective in stopping the spread of AIDS. That has probably led to deaths

Speaking of cherry picking.

If they listen to the Church's whole message, they wouldn't have sex in the first place and wouldn't get HIV. So they ignore that part that tells them not to have sex, but follow the part that says contraception is wrong.

Should the people be blamed for cherry picking or the Church for not taking into account that people cherry pick, even when Papa declarations supposedly "represent them"?

869. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149343 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:42 pm

SteveN.

Yes, because they are not knowingly doing the cherry-picking. As Steve Zara said (and what really sums up the whole point I was trying to make) "You can be honest, but also stupid, ignorant and wrong." People like McGrath do not have the excuse of stupidity and ignorance

We are going around in circles, So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?

Like I told Steve Z, it only appears "dishonest" because you take the fundamentalist default that
the text (an English translation!)stood on its own. This is not honesty, this is naivety and ignorance,

870. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149337 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:36 pm

No, what you are doing here is called the "red herring" fallacy. You asked me why I thought you were goalpost-moving. I answered - by claiming that we should not consider relevant the views of a major religious figure.

This major religious figure is also a political figure and it is not just a question of theology that is involved. You are the one who raise the red herring in the first place.

Yes.

So "intellectual honesty" to you basically means the absence of intellect or reflection, Strange definition but in that case I agree 100% than fundies are more intellectual honest. It is not a compliment.

871. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149333 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

SteveN

Indeed, theologians may not think that they are cherry-picking, and they may have big conferences and debates to decide what to accept as fact and what next to label as 'intended metaphor' but in the absence of evidence, all they're doing is cherry-picking.

Then so do the fundies who pray to the "Holy Spirit" to guide them cherry pick and they have no system at all. You think that is more honest?

872. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149332 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

With the "not my religion" technique. You attempted to define away the inconvenient fact of the Papacy.

No, you are using the strawman technique which started this debate in the first place. I never claimed that all non fundamentalists are honest.

Now this is the "not my geographical area" technique. You exclude Africa, South America, Asia...

If they just follow dogmas without reflections, they are closer to fundies than the reflective believer I have in mind. So by your definition they are intellectually honest because they don't "cherry pick" over the Church's dogmas.

873. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149327 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:19 pm

The moderates certainly do realise they are cherry picking. They have meetings like Synods at which they do this. They have "theologists" who help.

Theologians may not think that they are "cherry picking", they have systems and debates, The fundies cherry pick, but arbitrarily.

874. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149324 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Now that is not only goalpost-moving, but also backs up what I have been saying. Papal declarations are not honest! But, they represent the (supposed) views of a large fraction of Christians.

How exactly did I move the goalpost? I don't know how many Catholics actually think Papal declarations "represent" their views in North America or Europe.

875. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149319 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Of course they do. They just rarely think that they do. Which is the point.

Neither do the moderates. You only think they do because you assume the fundie position as your default.

876. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149315 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 12:59 pm

SteveN

My point, right from the beginning, is that the fundie thinks his evidence is stronger and doesn't commit the intellectually dishonest sin of cherry picking the data to fit the theory. If the moderates you refer to were to only accept the parts of the bible for which there was evidence, then there would be very little left in which to believe, including the belief in God.

Fundies don't cherry pick? Do you honestly think even fundies believe in a flat earth? They only use the Holy Spirit as a cover for their cherry picking,

Secondly, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "faith" is to many Christians. The formulation, "faith is to believe without evidence" while true in a bumper sticker slogan sort of way, but it misses out on a lot of nuances.

A sophisticated Christian would tell you faith is only invoked when reason alone cannot carry you through some last threshold, it is not a blanket excuse to reject all evidence and reasons in order to hold on to dogmas a b c. Moreover, he would say faith is a process, which involves constant struggle and questioning, it is not simply closing one's eyes to declare "I believe!"

It is a kind of rationalization and perhaps self deception, but it is not willful dishonesty. It is more subtle than that and it doesn't mean the person has to be overall irrational to have faith.

It is not like if you can accept one premise without evidence, namely that God exists, therefore anything goes. This is a point that the "rational crusaders" on this site often miss.

877. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149308 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 12:39 pm

steve

The honest approach would be to say "we really don't have that much of a clue. Work with us and we will see what we can come up with. We aren't quite sure what is really true, but we will do our best, so take what we say with a pinch of salt". There are more honest religions that do take this approach,

Yes, I agree, but if some moderate shows up saying his faith is a constant struggle to "know God" and he is willing to update his beliefs if warranted he will be accused of intellectual dishonesty by many here who apparently think that it is more honest to fabricate data and misrepresent evolution in order to argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That is very strange.

BTW, the Catholic Church INC is a corporation and I don't consider Papal declarations represent an honest Christian approach. I am talking about individuals .

878. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149304 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm

SteveN

Bonzai claims that there are objective methods used to analyse the text in order to determine the intent of the authors (i.e. story or historical record) but if that is so, why is there still so much controversy.

There are such controversies surrounding any ancient text, that's why there are so many papers still published on say, Lao Tze. The Bible is more complicated because it was written by so many people over such a long time.

Moreover, textual analysis, is not a 100% precise science like physics or chemistry, it is a bit like archeology where people do often don't agree
on things.

Finally, there is a lot of vested interests involved and Biblical interpretations do have contemporary significance, people probably wouldn't feel the same passion in taking sides over conflicting interpretations of some ancient Greek authors, if they do the controversies would be confined within the scholarly circles and we wouldn't even know.

879. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149296 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

This brake? Was it a hand-brake, foot-brake or perhaps a limb, or maybe some other part of his skeleton?

I am sure he meant a brick.

880. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149294 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Steve,

What is happening is that religion is providing rules for society that are supposedly God-given, and in some cases (such as Catholicism) it is allowing basically no doubt about those rules. Then, later, it changes its mind, and allows no doubt about the new rules. It is a form of intellectually dishonest re-writing of history.

We are talking about whether mythologies were generally taken to be factual truth or allegories by their creators and their audience, not the Catholic Church,

Catholicism is rather recent comparing to the stories in Genesis. It learned these stories second hand, hundreds of years after they were written, or perhaps thousands of year if you want to go back to the original Babylonian myths the Jews ripped off from, so I can't see why the Catholic's literal interpretation should be taken to be the "original" one and anything else were later "fudgings", I think you define the time line somewhat arbitrarily to warrant your conclusion, That is cheating,

Secondly, there is no reason why moral laws based on religion would necessitate a literal interpretation of all myths. All civilizations have creation myths but often their moral codes only bore tangential relationship to these stories or not at all, Many pagan civilizations didn't see their Gods as the source of morality, As atheists we should be encouraged by that.

881. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149285 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 11:48 am

Take the blinders off.

That is an idiotic reply, like many of your posts lately, Are you drinking too much Duff?

882. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149277 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 11:34 am

SteveN

You seem to be missing again the point I'm trying so hard to make. Whether or not parts of the bible are factual or not is irrelevant. It is the method by which parts are condemned to be allergory/metaphor and others to be factual based on nothing more than personal opinion that is intellectually dishonest

I didn't ignore your point and in fact I have addressed it.

You keep on saying that their methods are based on "personal opinions" which is simply not true. Contemporary Bible scholarship uses many techniques in textual analysis and so on to try to figure out the intended meanings of Biblical passages.

There are two separate issues here. First there were the apparent truth claims, to ascertain them would require external evidence.Secondly, what were the claims that have actually been made? Just as Riely pointed out the Bible was written by many authors using many different styles and it presents a genuine problem to decide which was meant to be literal and which was meant to be metaphorical, what was meant to be eternal and what was only situational, There is nothing "dishonest" in trying to sort that out, It is just like trying to parse other ancient literary texts.


Indeed the early Christians themselves had been doing that with the Old Testament in a much more careless and carefree way than contemporary scholars.

You are thinking that somehow religion is a static thing based only on the texts, this is a fantasy of the fundamentalists and apparently some atheists,

Until relatively recently, the Adam and Eve story, the Flood etc. were considered by most people in Europe to be factually true. Very few (if any) of the 16th Century theologians suggested that Genesis was 'just a metaphor'.

Well if some Rabi is believable the Adam and Eve story was largely taken to be a metaphor until the Church wanted to justify Jesus' mission with the doctrine of original sin. So who invented what is a historical question. If you believe in Tom Harpur who wrote the Pagan Christ, Paul invented the literal interpretation wholesale.

Just as I told epeeist, the assumption that somehow religious stories go through a shift from literal truth to metaphors because of challenges from science is not a self evident one, and I have seen no evidence for that as a general pattern.

IMO, a fundamental error made by many people here, following Dawkins himself, is to see religion simply as a collections of truth claims, a kind of bad science which attempts to "explain" experience.

In fact mythologies served at least two roles.They were sometimes used as explanatory models, no question about that, but more commonly, before the advent of formal theology, they were a way to summarize people's experience, to convey moral lessons and to capture some kind of experience with the "transcendence" which they didn't have a name for.

To summarize an experience is not the same as attempting to "explain" it. I think the explanation part came later. So, I actually think that it is the other way around, creation stories were first taken as allegories, it is Church dogmas that turn them into literal truths.

I seriously don't think the ancient Jews were armature geologists who took the earth to be 6000 years old because the Bible said so,

883. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149238 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

The ground is the claim of divine inspiration

"Divinely inspired". is not the same as "divinely dictated", If that is the claim they would say so, like the Muslims claim about the Quran.

So no, your objection is not valid.

Edit Moreover, even if the book is claimed to be divinely dictated, like the Quran, there is still no scriptural ground in saying that God could not make situational instructions or use metaphors, at least not for the Bible. There is no Biblical basis that God is a literalist.

To make claims about the intent of Biblical passages you have to somehow put yourself into the shoes of the intended, contemporary audience. It is not intellectually dishonest for a believer in acknowledging that and reject the fundies' approach.

884. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149237 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:51 am

irate,

If it can be interpreted differently, it is clearly not 'truth'. It is also clearly not 'divinely inspired' if it is so damn imprecise. And inaccurate. And contradictory. And false.

Of course I agree as an atheist. But that is not what the debate is on. It is about whether an intellectually honest Christian is obliged to be a fundamentalist. I don't believe so, As I said, even the fundamentalists pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance when reading the Bible, so they don't actually believe the Bible is self contained either,

885. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149234 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:45 am

Of course not, but I'm not claiming Shakespeare to be factually accurate

But except for the fundies, Christians are not claiming, and are not obliged to claim that every bit of the bible is factually accurate.

There is no scriptural basis for such claim as far as I am aware of.

If it's not arbitrary, why are no two opinions the same? If you are aware of a widely accepted, authoritative guide to what is fact and what is fiction in the bible (and more importantly the basis for these distictions), then I would be grateful for the source. All I can find is personal opinion and selective cherry-picking wrapped up in clever names.

You probably have the same problem with Homer, Lao Tze and any ancient texts for that matter. Even if you adhere to rigorous scholarship there will be differences in interpretations and opinions, It doesn't mean the scholarship is arbitrary though.

That being the case I wonder what is the ground in asserting, like steve does, that only a literal reading of the Bible, based on a translated text is the way of the fundis is "intellectually honest".

886. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149220 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:21 am

Riely

Educating a Christian about what they are supposed to believe as a Christian is what I think Bonzai was being critical of. I agree with Bonzai's point, and I think your attacks on his point rely on a misrepresentation of that point.

Exactly, I think I was clear about the point I was making.

887. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149217 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:18 am

The problem is that if you admit that the bible was written by men, you have to get into all sorts of contortions if you still want to believe a God was behind any of it.

Yes, this is from an atheist, but the Christians don't see it that way and not even the fundies.

Do you think fundies think that the earth is flat?

All Charismatic sects,--fundies,--pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance before they open the Bible, If the Bible is self contained they wouldn't need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So they have no business in accusing others of "twisting", they do exactly the same thing, only they turn it into a doctrine.

The internet comes back on..

888. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149206 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:05 am

Steve,

Non-literalist: "The word 'flat' is used out of context. My research has allowed me to fudge the word 'flat' to mean 'roundish'"

It is not like that.

Nonliteralist: The Bible was written by men, albeit "inspired", The purpose of the passage was to convey a moral story, not to teach geology, So why must it be accurate regarding the shape of the earth? READ IN CONTEXT.

I can sympathize with this. Normally when you read a historical or literary narration and see a sentence like "enemies are moving in from the four corners of the earth.." you wouldn't say it implies the earth really has four corners. That is NOT THE POINT of the narrative.


Hope this get posted.

889. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149194 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:50 am

I have no problem with this at all. We tell others what they should believe all the time. It is called education.

In the context of debate with theists this is called strawman argument.

890. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149190 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:46 am

Steve,

What a strange question.

I am ignorant of the geometry of the Earth. I am honest if I say that I believe it to be flat.

See?

If I were a forum fundamentalist I would agree with you. But reading in context you implied the person who said the earth is round is somehow less honest, which I don't agree.

MaxD

I will get back to you later because I am losing my internet connection, I don't want to write a long reply only to lose it. I am too lazy to save forum posts.

891. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149185 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:33 am

I should add that Christian fundamentalists do accept that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in reading and interpreting the bible. They state this more explicitly as a doctrine than non fundamentalist sects which rely on scholarship and exegesis,

Once the fundies open the door to individual guidance by the Holy Spirit they have no leg in accusing the non-fundamentalists of "going by their feelings" because they are doing exactly the same thing, it would be just as legitimate to say that God's revelations are private and personal while the Bible is just a prop, If you need the Holy Spirit to guide you, you basically admit that the Bible is not self contained.

892. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149170 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

SteveN

. My only point is that the fundamentalist belief is, as far as the fundie is concerned, intellectually honest.

Yes, but only as far as the fundies are concerned, being ignorant is not the same as being intellectually honest.

Take a way the super natural element and just consider reading the Bible a comprehension exercise. Would you say it is "intellectually more honest" to read Shakespeare simply on face value while ignoring all allusions, metaphors and historical context?

The sophisticated believer has to jump through hoops to fit the bible into a modern world-view and this, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. One should decide which parts of the bible are historically or literally true (if any) based on evidence, not personal feelings.

Non literalism isn't necessarily the same as being sophisticated. There are those who read the bible based on personal feelings, but not all non-literalists are like that. Some have sophisticated systems to do the picking and choosing, it is called exegesis. It is not arbitrary.

hungarianelephant

Wrt most of Christianity, I would say that this is rather beside the point.

So what if most Christians are ignorant? It doesn't mean they are somehow more "honest" or "authentic" then the few that we happen to engage.

Didn't Jesus say that most people will seek but wouldn't find and that the truth path is narrow? :)

If someone comes up and claims to be a Christian, I think a basic courtesy of discourse would be to let him tell you what he actually believes and take it from there, rather assuming what he must believe, or worse, to tell him what he should believe when his views don't fit our expectations and reflexively making accusation of dishonesty.

Given that these selfsame people align themselves unashamedly to churches which holds recognisably fundamentalist positions

You are describing the wooly believers.

Now if they feel free enough to believe in a mismash of things like picking from an all you can eat buffet I would think that they wouldn't align themselves automatically with Churches. If they support a Church position on issue X, there are probably other reasons than the pastors telling them to. Maybe you should ask them why,

893. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149158 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

I am not claiming it is authentic. Just more honest.

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

894. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149152 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:35 am

Dr. Benway

I don't think atheists have a problem with scholarship. They have a problem with thinking about the book as anything more than literature. They criticize the scholars for trying to have things both ways.

Then criticize the magic when it comes up. I have no problem with atheists calling believers out on what they actually believe, but I do have a problem with atheists telling believers what they should believe based on a very shallow way of reading ancient literature, which is essentially like a know nothing fundamentalist Bible thumpers (or "bashers" in the U.K) in the deep South.

epeeist

We have had a similar attempt at discussion with Artful Dodger. What is literal, what is metaphorical, how do you tell the difference between the two and how is the authority to declare which is which granted? He has done his usual post-and-run at this point. You have added another - what does the metaphor mean?

Those are all fair questions that an honest believer would have to answer. But that is quite different from saying that since there are ambiguities the only "authentic" Christianity is to take all words as literal truth, It is dumb and ridiculous. Supposedly rational and informed critics of religion should know better,

Thinking theists are happy to declare Genesis symbolic until one asks what therefore did Jesus die for, at which point Adam and Eve seem to acquire some level of literalness again.They want to eat their cake and have it.

Do you know for sure that the whole of Genesis was meant to be literal? In Hebrew "Adam" simply means "man" and I was told by some Jews that the ancient Jews didn't take the story of the Garden of Eden literally. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Judaism can shed some lights on it.

Your point seems to be that people used to take everything literally until science showed that literalism is untenable and they shift to more symbolic interpretations to avoid being nailed down. I am sure that happened but I don't think you can claim that is a general rule,--not as a bald assertion without better evidence from religious history anyway. It is not a self evident claim.

steve

It is. The sophisticated believers have more to explain. They have "New Bible with added 'Interpretation' - helps wash away the nasty bits".

Yes, they have things to explain and sometimes they do and sometimes they fudge. I am oppose to the categorical statement that only a literal interpretation is authentic and everything else is "fudging".This is naive and shallow,

Al

The "part describing the whole" being one example. These are easily identified, and are generally understandable to someone with even a modest understanding of semitic languages.

That would exclude most Bible thumpers.

So to say that these are cryptic in a way to make them indecipherable to translators or scholars, is a bit of a stretch.

Even translation from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese is not trivial, a lot is lost in translation, let alone translating into a different language. Maybe there is more continuation ancient in ME language so that their ancient forms are sufficiently similar to their modern descendants, I don't know but it is not intuitively obvious.

But even if you know to tease out all the metaphores from the literal,--based on our reconstruction of linguistic history, there is still an unspoken context, is it supposed to be an eternal command, or is it situational thing, etc?

I see no reason why an "authentic believer" must assume that all verses in the bible are universal and literal like reading instruction manuals,

895. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149096 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:51 am

bibanu

You are comparing things (e.g. dynamite) and their use with ideas/theories and their consequences. It is not the same thing. THEORIES have consequences - and I think that Coulter shows a nice and believable sequence there (and note the German scholar who she is quoting - another Richard :)).

Well, people can't be held responsible if their ideas are being bastardized, Darwin should be held responsible for eugenics no more than Einstein should be blamed for post modernism because of the idiotic slogan "everything is relative".

However, I do think we should extend the same considerations to the other side, to blame Christianity for Hitler is just as flimsy.

896. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149092 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:44 am

So Hitler believed in Thor.

BTW, not call Creationists are Christians or even followers of the Abrahamic faiths, Many pagans are creationists, so were most pre-Christians. They have different creation myths.

897. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149080 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:08 am

Steve,

But to claim that the source book is all true is a more consistent attitude than to knowingly fudge things and try and claim divine authority for that fudgeing.

Being "true" and being "literally true" are two separate matters, If I say someone was caught lying and his pants are on fire, that would be "true" if he was indeed caught and was embarrassed for the lie, even though his pants are not literally "on fire".

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly. It is not like in contemporary English where you can tell relatively easily which is which. Aside from the fact that English is a relatively straight forward language, the ease in parsing is partly due to an unspoken shared cultural references. To decipher what Biblical passages meant to the contemporary audience would involve a lot of linguistic and anthropological forensic work, which is the subject of Biblical scholarship.

I am not saying all moderate believers study Biblical scholarship but to say that the only consistent way to believe is to take the whole book word for word in translation is simply naive.

During the cultural revolution, the French intellectual André Malraux visited Mao, he asked Mao to describe the situation in China. Mao said, "it was like a Buddhist Monk carrying an umbrella." Malraux thought that was very romantic, he returned to France and wrote articles on the romantic image. When the Chinese read his articles, they laughed their pants off. You see, in Chinese "hair" ryhmes with "law" and "heaven" is a traditional reference for higher power, somewhat like "God" minus the personality. A Buddhist monk is shaved, he has no hair, hence no law, the umbrella blocks off the sky, so no heaven either. Mao's words means "total lawlessness and chaos".

Now there were many Chinese speakers in France who could have told Malraux that if he cared to ask and his translator was obviously not very competent. But at least he did know it was a parable, only he screwed it up.

Now you are telling me that one can be justifiable confident that he can figure out the intended meanings of the Bible by reading an English translation thousands of years later, in a naive literalist approach. Sorry, I think that is insanity talking even for a true believer,

By insisting one can only read the bible like a fundamentalist the atheist critique comes off as naive and shallow for the sophisticated believers. It is not "fudging" to acknowledge that language is complex.

P.S. In case the readers are wondering, the pants didn't really fall off for the Chinese readers of Malraux, it was just figuratively speaking.

898. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149071 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 4:35 am

I actually agree with the fundamentalists on this point (never thought I'd say that!). I have more 'respect' intellectually speaking for the fundamentalists in this regard. The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible

Yeah, "fundamentalists" reading a translated Bible as if Jesus spoke English, what a joke. At least Muslims read the Quran in Arabic.

You may have more sympathy for the fundamentalists because you share their shallow, "born again" mindsets, only different "religion".

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally if you take the naive, literalist approach and it needs to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.There is no scriptural basis to say that "God" is an literalist even for the believers.


Even if you disagree with something you don't set up a strawman and then shoot it down to declare victory.

If you want to criticize religion at least try to understand it first.

End of rant,

899. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148912 by Bonzai on March 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm

It is called Buddhism.

Well as you know there are many strands of Buddhism, some do have gods.

I don't think the atheistic strands of Buddhism or something like Taoism (also atheistic in its pure form)would be able to take the place of God beliefs for all. There are Christians and even Muslims who do practise some kind of Buddhist meditation and read Taoist philosophy. But somehow that is not enough to fill the "God hole" in their brains. What does that feel like? I don't know, it is qualia ,can't be described.

900. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148909 by Bonzai on March 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Norman,

Do you really think Richard Steigmann-Gall's "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945" is merely desperate and simplistic?

Well what did he say? Do tell us, you, however do look desperate and simplistic with questions such as this:

Is there another kind [of Christianity]?

What does Edwin Black, "War against the weak" actually say?

Edwin Black provided documented evidence, including Hitler's private correspondence with American eugenicists that proves convincingly that Hitler was inspired by "science" in his "final solution". Look up the book, or find a review online ("science" is in quotes because it was a bastardized form of "Darwinism". It was actually a pseudoscience and an ideology)

Did I ever say otherwise? Only Hitler said otherwise and I quoted him. I didn't even mention Martin Luther's anti-semitism like Richard did.

Invoking Martin Luther is quite "flimsy" indeed, for Hitler looked at Jews in racial, rather than religious terms. If religion was the motivation he could have just forced the Jews to convert.

Also, Germany was actually one of the LEAST anti-semitic country in Europe before the Nazi took over, it is untenable to depict Nazi genocide against Jews as a logical extension of old world anti-semitism.

So, direct quotes from Hitler are flimsy?

If some guy told me "I am Napoleon", a direct quote, does it follow that he was really Napoleon?

Any one with some minimal historical knowledge and common sense would know quotes mean nothing if cited like bumper sticker slogans without the proper context. Since obviously you are not stupid you must think that we are.