Bible thumpers

[thestoat]

You only have five, how much evidence can you gather? I gather it's far from 'utter'

That is, of course, a very good point. We only have five and can only go by the input from those five. Though of course the five we do have have been augmented by loads of "secondary senses" such as long range telescopes, etc. Obviously, if I could successfully argue that science gives us a million senses, it could be argued that "only" a million senses is far from 'utter', if you see what I mean. I guess I am asking how many senses you need? It seems to me that each new piece of information we gather, each new "sense" we gain from science and understanding, does not suggest a divine presence.

With so much evidence not pointing to any form of god, I wonder where the evidence is that suggests there is one. For me, faith isn't it. This isn't meant to be rude (I am sure (hope) you know I do respect your religion), but I could have a 'faith' that gnomes live at the bottom of my garden. I could fervently believe that with all my being. It wouldn't make it so. The only difference I can see between gnomes and a god is that many more people believe in a god than gnomes.

I see no evidence for gnomes in my garden - therefore I cannot see any reason to believe they are there.
I see no evidence that people wan hover in the air unaided - therefore I don't believe they can.
I see no evidence for a god - therefore I cannot see any reason to believe in one.

[Gob]

Do you mean utter lack of physical evidence? That is; what you can perceive with your senses? You only have five, how much evidence can you gather?

1. sight (visual sense)

2. hearing (auditory sense)

3. smell (olfactory sense)

4. taste (gustatory sense)

5-8. touch: The skin senses

Because touch involves four different sets of nerves, the skin senses are considered four separate senses:

5. heat

6. cold

7. pressure

8. pain

9. motion (kinesthetic sense)

10. balance (vestibular sense)

[Big RR]

I see no evidence for gnomes in my garden - therefore I cannot see any reason to believe they are there.
I see no evidence that people wan hover in the air unaided - therefore I don't believe they can.
I see no evidence for a god - therefore I cannot see any reason to believe in one.

OK Stoat, but we all take many "truths" on faith, even if they are contradictory to our perceptions. Take atomic theory, e.g.; it basically states that all matter is made up primarily of empty space, even though our own senses teach us that matter is solid and has no empty space within it. Yes, there is scientific evidence to back this up, but how many of us have really examined that evidence or could even fully understand it if we did? We are relying on the teachings of others and our own sense of understanding of how things work to validate this belief. Is this different in a belief in a supreme being?

Likewise, consider the nature of black holes, wherein this empty space is removed because of the massive gravitational pull which collpases all matter into a single spoint termed a singularity; a massive gravtiational pull that traps even light which proceeds beyond a boundary called the even horizon. But beyond those words which connote some meaning, do any of us really understand the nature of a black hole, or the evidence that they exist? Or do we again rely on the teachings of others and our own sense of understanding to descrbe something which cannot otherwise be understood, much like a supreme being?

Now I don't mean to equate science with religion; the two are quite different. All I mean to point out is that most of us (except maybe the highly educated high energy physicists and astrophysicists in my examples) take an awful lot on faith in the teachings of others and our own understanding. Most of us are in no better position to state with a certainty that all matter is comprised of empty space, or the nature of a black hole, than we are to state with the certainty the existence/nonexistence of a supreme being or the nature of him/her/it. We take much on faith, we don't often deal in absolutes.

Now you may argue that science and rationality has a much better track record than metaphysicis/religion, and that you feel your "faith" is much better grounded in the teachings of those who purport to understand the data and proofs of their theories, and I will agree with you. I also rely on the teachings of science, even some of which I don't fully understand, to form my understanding of the universe; but unless and until I understand those teachings fully fully, I realize it is a form of faith and belief to accept them as fact (just as I accepted on faith that there was a country called Denmark before I ever traveled there or saw a picture of it). Is this rational? I'll leave it to you to debate that, but how can one learn unless one accepts some truths one cannot prove (at least until one has a better understanding)?

Religious faith takes this another step; it is faith in something the believer knows can never be fully proven. It's a leap into a dark void where much can be learned, but little can be fully experienced. It is a belief in something outside of the natural world (supernatural if you will) which can only be glimpsed and imagined at best (must like the singularity all matter collapses to in the black hole), but something that believers feel is validated through extended sensory perceptions (I'm avoiding the confusion with ESP). I cannot prove the existence of supreme being, but I believe one exists, and I have had expereinces that validate this belief for me. My concept of that being may be different from many, or even most, other persons who believe in him/her/it, but then that is to be expected when something cannot be easily described. Rational? Probably not; but again, the belief is the first step toward learning.

[thestoat]

Damn good points, Big RR. The fundamental difference, for me, is this.

The teachings of science may be validated in many ways by many people. If a belief/law/theory is found to be lacking by anyone, the whole community of science is generally excited and ready to understand new concepts and find a new truth that better explains things.

Compare to religion - founded on a single book. This book was
1. written something like 1600 years ago
2. written 400 years after any alleged "facts"
3. heavily edited by some bloke for his own purposes (Emperor Constantine who threw out most of the original Gospels)
4. heavily modified, added to, subtracted from ever since by various people

My experience has been there is no willingness to be proved wrong or accept new concepts (mainly because after 1600 years with a single resource, there are no new concepts likely to emerge).

I believe in science because it is progressive. If a scientist told me some "law" of physics, and said that though I couldn't see or verify it, this "law" was true because he had found a thousand year old book that said it was, I'd treat him with the same disbelief I treat the bible. It is well possible other books with similar stories to those found in the bible would be around today had not their authors been burnt at the stake as heretics. Let's not forget that the bible is a collection of stories found in much older texts.

Religious faith takes this another step; it is faith in something the believer knows can never be fully proven

"Fully" proven? Or proven in any way, shape or form?

For me, there are three types of "truth".
1. Things I can experience and see, such as gravity. I have an understanding of them (I studied physics at university) and, although I have not proven the maths, I put a high enough probability on the truth being right that I can accept it as fact.
2. Things that I can't see or experience but have on "good authority" that they exist. Things like black holes and the assertion that "lava spews out of volcanoes". I haven't actually seen or experienced either but many reputable sources have told me so, they are open to contradiction and open to being corrected. I can put a high enough probability on the truth being right that I can accept it as fact.
3.Things that I can't see or experience and have no reason to believe in the things' existance. No preacher can tell me in any authoritative sense (to my mind) that a god exists because they will simply be repeating what they have been told - told by someone who was themselves told. No new evidence. No openness to contradiction (though some are happy to debate theological and atheological issues). There is simply no reason TO believe them.

We take much on faith

We do. Absolutely. The fundamental difference is that if a scientist speaks about things that are not actually true, they will soon be shot down (not literally, of course ) and proven wrong. They have to provide evidence and back it up or they will rightly be treated by scepticism at best. If a preacher speaks of their religion, they do not need to back it up with any proof or evidence.

Of course, the vast majority of Religious people are decent, honest people (as are the vast majority of non religious people of course). They have their beliefs which gives them comfort. Great for them. Of course - when they call on people's doors and go "bible thumping", well ...

[Big RR]

Good points Stoat; science is a dscipline where misconceptions are rooted out and exposed, so the "faith" may well be more justified. but the same is true of religion; google religion, or even christianity, and you'll be presented with dozens of different relious denominations that all have a different view of the supreme being and his/her/its relationship to our lives. The debates rage, but they don't get the coverage the scientific ones do, possibly because there are less concrete things to talk about. Indeed, wars have been fought over these differences (although I'll really never understand why).

[Crackpot]

1. written something like 1600 years ago

That's one of the times it was compiled not written.

2. written 400 years after any alleged "facts"

False I assume you're talking NT here which has its earliest manusripts dating from 56 AD which is approx. 30 years from the events and therefore contemporary)

3. heavily edited by some bloke for his own purposes (Emperor Constantine who threw out most of the original Gospels)

misleading. Many of the gnostic gospels (I don't use absolute terms since I m not familiar with all of them) are false writings for the express purpose of starting their own religions. These are early an often far worse written equivalents of "the book of Mormon" Others like the GOspel of Thomas are nothing but random quotes of Jesus that mean little to nothing without their context.

In short this is the argumentative equivalent of saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon.

(PS Constantine had little if anything to do with the canon)

4. heavily modified, added to, subtracted from ever since by various people

Err not really. Do you actually have any evidence of this that is not already footnoted in most of todays bibles?

[Big RR]

Many of the gnostic gospels (I don't use absolute terms since I m not familiar with all of them) are false writings for the express purpose of starting their own religions.

while that may or may not be true, I think it's also pretty evident that many writings were excluded because they challenged the traditional orthodoxy of the Roman churchand, thus, were rejected as "false writings". Face it, many traditions arose from the teachings of Jesus, including what eventually became the Roman church, and the gnostics. Little was written and authenticated, and various traditions relied on their own compilations and oral traditions of the teachings of jesus; the roman church met to determine which writings were canonical, and which should be rejected ans wrong and heretical. Is it all that surprising that those writings which were in conflict with the theology originally developed by Paul and then changed and evolved over the intervening decades, were the ones ruled false/heretical? Splits have occurred again and again in christianity over what practices/beliefs are "authentic" (for want of a better word) and what are heretical. This hardly seems like saying a "cruise missile hit the pentagon" to me; more like common sense.

Does this destroy the value of the scriptures? IMHO, as a historical document, not all all. Certainly the writings are tainted by the prevailing beliefs of those who assembled/wrote them, but such is true about any writings. But they are useful for understanding events and teachings, especially when the same events/lessons are discussed in mutliple (nearly) contemporaneous reports; one need not agre with Paul's analysis to recognize that his letters often refer to teachings of jesus reported in others sources, both scriptural and non canonical. Certainly, adopting a sola scriptura approach to understanding is difficult in light of inconsistencies, but much can be gleaned from these and other writings. In the end it is up to each of us to make sense of it all and decide what we believe, and i don't believe that the supreme being is bound by any compilation of writings anymore than by anything else.

[loCAtek]

Also note, that's pigeon-holing all theism, including Christianity, to a single spiritual [modern] work. There are thousands and thousands of others ...on this Earth, anyway.

[Crackpot]

RR
Not really since at the time most of this stuff was nailed down the RC church wasn't near the power it is now let alone the monolith it was in the middle ages. In fact the RC Church wasn't even the only church involved in the canons they included all of the "original" churches which included the Coptic and Orthodox churches (among others that I can't remember offhand)

Given a good look at the history and circumstances around the canons and other biblical conventions the "Big Bad
RC Church" theory just doesn't hold water.

one need not agre with Paul's analysis to recognize that his letters often refer to teachings of jesus reported in others sources, both scriptural and non canonical.

The few "non-canonical" references Paul makes are to non-biblical Jewish sources and not Gnostic texts. What many miss is that Paul's ministry is not so much based on what Jesus said rather given what scripture (read: OT) says why you should believe in Jesus and what that belief means in regards to traditional Judaism and why.

[Big RR]

Crackpot--granted the eatern churches had their divergent views from the church of Rome, and even today have some different (additional) books forming part of their canon, but the Roman church had the greatest influence on the various parts of christianity since most of the protestant churches split from the church of Rome and not from the eatern orthodox churches. The Vulgate of St Jerome (from around the 4th or 5th century as i recall) is pratically identical to the catholic bible today and its new testament mirrors that of the protestant and RC churches. The 800 lb gorilla had its influence; as the official church of the largest empire on earth, how could it not?

Re Paul, what I meant to say is that many of Paul's letters mirror other accounts of the teachings of Jesus, which lends credence to those teachings likely being close to the truth. Which is how all historical documents are utilized.

[thestoat]

Crackpot, I have to defer to your superior knowledge on the source of the bible - as you can guess, it isn't a book I have much time for. It has been and is interpreted and re interpreted all the time. And it is only relatively recently that our society is enlightened enough to allow people to question it at all (though some could successfully argue we still don't live in such a time judging by terrorist atrocities). That suppression in the search for truth ("burn them, burn them") has, for me, removed any credibility the bible may have had.

Anyway, this doesn't detract from my main thread which is that it is fundamentally a single book that is incredibly old. Not a book I would base my beliefs on.

For me, it isn't so much that I don't believe in a god (though I don't), it is just that I can't see why I would need to.

[loCAtek]

This life will end, when it's done you're going back to him.

[Crackpot]

stoat[/b
Ok i'll stop challenging you on your closely held false beliefs.

[thestoat]

This life will end, when it's done you're going back to him.

Nah - I plan to live forever ...

Ok i'll stop challenging you on your closely held false beliefs

I am happy for my false beliefs to be challenged