Scientific explanation for the events in Exodus.

Glenster

What does everyone think of this?

http://www.slate.com/id/2248901/


For people too damned lazy to click on it it talks about the push to explain the miracles described in exodus among certain academics.

Do you think this takes anything away from the exodus story by demystifying it, or does it contribute to it, make it more real?

At the end of the article the author quotes someone as saying what makes all these events miraculous was not their inexplicableness (real word?) but their timing, what do people think about that.

Glenster

Threadfail.

prinz

Glenster wrote: »

Threadfail.

:pac: the thought of you looking like this has made me reply. I think it contributes to it and makes it more real.

wolfsbane

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone think of this?

http://www.slate.com/id/2248901/


For people too damned lazy to click on it it talks about the push to explain the miracles described in exodus among certain academics.

Do you think this takes anything away from the exodus story by demystifying it, or does it contribute to it, make it more real?

At the end of the article the author quotes someone as saying what makes all these events miraculous was not their inexplicableness (real word?) but their timing, what do people think about that.

Some miracles are entirely without secondary causes, others involve them, and timing is everything. God is free to use whatever means He chooses, so the fact that He involves a strong wind in the miracle in the Red Sea is no indication that other miracles were not entirely without physical cause. The death of the Egyptian first-born, for example. What physical cause would select only the first-born of man and beast and except the Israelites?

Most of the 'physical' explanations I have read for the miracles of the Bible are the result of anti-supernaturalism rather than scholarship.

Fanny Cradock

I don't see why there can't be a scientific explanations for certain miracles. As I've mentioned before, I appreciate the work of people like Colin Humphereys in this field. Ultimately I don't see a scientific explanation as removing God - it's reasonable to suggest that he could choose to operate though naturalistic means. Yet, despite this, there are also some miracles in the bible - the resurrection is one such example - that are non-negotiable if one is to remain true to the fundamentals of Christianity.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see why there can't be a scientific explanations for certain miracles... Ultimately I don't see a scientific explanation as removing God - it's reasonable to suggest that he could choose to operate though naturalistic means.

I had a discussion with a Christian pal about Moses/Red Sea etc, where I proposed that there could be an entirely naturalistic, geological explanation for it (earthquake, tsunami, water recedes etc). She responded that that may be the case but all it confirmed for her was that god had a perfect sense of timing...

Glenster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ultimately I don't see a scientific explanation as removing God - it's reasonable to suggest that he could choose to operate though naturalistic means. Yet, despite this, there are also some miracles in the bible - the resurrection is one such example - that are non-negotiable if one is to remain true to the fundamentals of Christianity.

God choosing to operate through natural means has always been confusing for me, does that mean that whenever anything natural happens it is through the direct agency of God?

Or does it mean that God, in his precognative omniscience, set up existence so that the natural laws of the universe would make this thing happen at this particular time?

These miracles were seen for thousands of years as Gods hand physically parting the Red Sea, or Gods breath blowing into a bush, does the fact that there is a natural explanation for them (if there is, they're a bit tenuous) lessen or diminish the idea of the agency of God in these miracles?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I had a discussion with a Christian pal about Moses/Red Sea etc, where I proposed that there could be an entirely naturalistic, geological explanation for it (earthquake, tsunami, water recedes etc). She responded that that may be the case but all it confirmed for her was that god had a perfect sense of timing...

Yes, we actually use the word 'miracle' in two different ways:
a) A seemingly impossible event which is inexplicable except by positing that the normal 'laws' of nature have been suspended or broken.
b) An event where natural forces and processes operate in a way that would seem to be so unlikely that "God did it" becomes a simpler and more reasonable explanation than ascribing it to coincidence.

Events such as the Resurrection, the Feeding of the 5000, or Healing Malchus' ear would seem to me to be Category A miracles.

Other events, such as finding a coin in a fishes mouth, healing blindness, or Calming the Storm would seem to falll into Category B.

The same would hold true today. Imagine I needed €1254.00 to pay my mortgage. As I am on my way to the bank a newspaper I am holding in my hand miraculously transmutes into a bundle of banknotes (I wish!). That would be a Category A miracle.

But what if, the day before I am due to pay my mortgage, a letter arrives from someone who has no knowledge of my circumstances, but they felt prompted to send me a cheque for exactly €1254? No laws of nature have been broken or suspended, so it could be an amazing coincidence - right? But what if the same thing happens the next month, but a different person, still with no knowledge of my circumstances, sends the exact amount required? What if the same thing happens for 4 months in a row? Or 12 months in a row? Sooner or later you reach a stage where the 'coincidence' explanation requires more faith than the 'miracle' explanation.

Most of Jesus' miracles, and indeed many Old Testament miracles, could be explained individually as rare coincidences or natural phenomena. But the timing and frequency of those events leads us to see them as miracles. Yes, it may be naturally possible for a wind to part the Red Sea - but it is not reasonable to believe that it was entirely by coincidence that it happened just at the moment when the Israelites were trapped and at the very second that Moses stretched forth his staff and prayed for a miracle. It is even more unreasonable to believe that the same coincidence followed on, for the same person, immediately after a whole series of billion-to-one coincidences that seemed to be plagues in Egypt.

Incidentally, it seems to me that we find it much easier to pray for, and to see, Category B miracles rather than Category A events. I have personally prayed and then had people give me cheques for the exact amount I needed for my mortgage - but my newspaper has never morphed into a bundle of cash.

This may be an answer for the question as to why God doesn't heal amputees. Even the most devout and faith-filled believers lack the faith to believe for such a Category A miracle.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Incidentally, it seems to me that we find it much easier to pray for, and to see, Category B miracles rather than Category A events. I have personally prayed and then had people give me cheques for the exact amount I needed for my mortgage - but my newspaper has never morphed into a bundle of cash.

That is probably because humans are very bad a working out probability, and some what ironically enough, almost expect "improbable" things to happen because they actually do happen all the time (because they aren't actually that improbable). When they do we go wow that is really weird, but we don't panic and thing the order of the universe is crumbling because we expect that things we think are really improbable will actually happen from time to time (like me hearing Summer of 69 twice in the same day after not hearing it for years, like what happened to me yesterday)

Where as we have an internal notion that things that actually break known systems, such as biology, don't happen and thus we don't expect them to.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is probably because humans are very bad a working out probability, and some what ironically enough, almost expect "improbable" things to happen because they actually do happen all the time (because they aren't actually that improbable).

Where as we have an internal notion that things that actually break known systems, such as biology, don't happen and thus we don't expect them to.

No, people are fairly good at working out probabilities.

Most people can understand that a succession of amazing coincidences happening just when you need them is rather improbable. Only the most dogmatic faith-heads think that such things as I mentioned in my post happen 'all the time'.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

I had a discussion with a Christian pal about Moses/Red Sea etc, where I proposed that there could be an entirely naturalistic, geological explanation for it (earthquake, tsunami, water recedes etc). She responded that that may be the case but all it confirmed for her was that god had a perfect sense of timing...

I would have to agree with all three people - your friend, PDN and Humphereys (I linked to a talk of his yesterday where he makes a convincing case for a naturalistic geological event combined with impeccable timing. All, of course, underpinned by God's perfect foreknowledge of future events). It doesn't diminish God in my eyes. Rather, its another facet to a multi-faceted being.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

(like me hearing Summer of 69 twice in the same day after not hearing it for years, like what happened to me yesterday)

Summer of '69? More likely to be the work of the devil. Still, we had this coincidence/ miracle debate before, no? Dare I suggest (not as a mod, but as a member) that it might derail an otherwise interesting thread.

Fanny Cradock

Glenster wrote: »

God choosing to operate through natural means has always been confusing for me, does that mean that whenever anything natural happens it is through the direct agency of God?

Or does it mean that God, in his precognative omniscience, set up existence so that the natural laws of the universe would make this thing happen at this particular time?

These miracles were seen for thousands of years as Gods hand physically parting the Red Sea, or Gods breath blowing into a bush, does the fact that there is a natural explanation for them (if there is, they're a bit tenuous) lessen or diminish the idea of the agency of God in these miracles?

Who is to say? However, I think it would be easier to suggest that the universe is a self-contained system (God doesn't pull a lever named "earthquake" or "rain" or whatever) and when he preforms a miracle he may choose to use his omniscience rather than piercing through the laws of nature. Perhaps in certain cases, God favors the most parsimonious course. Why one way instead of the other. Again, who is to say?. But I wonder if there is there a correct way to go about preforming miracles? Perhaps the book (and talk) I've mentioned may help address you queries in more depth.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Summer of '69? More likely to be the work of the devil. Still, we had this coincidence/ miracle debate before, no? Dare I suggest (not as a mod, but as a member) that it might derail an otherwise interesting thread.

No problem, didn't mean to derail the thread. I (and apparently no end of popular science authors who delight in tell us) disagree with PDN that people are good at judging probability, but that isn't that relevant to this thread, so links for further reading if anyone is interested, make up your own minds. Of particular note in relation to what PDN is talking about is the "Small Effect Illusion" described in the book Debunked!.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=DpnWcMzeh8oC&lpg=PP1&ots=4flSkKrGsf&dq=Debunked!%20Georges%20Charpak&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0im1v/donettesteelepsychology/id11.html
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/being_analog.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/03/SECURITY_MATTERS0322

Carry on

Soul Winner

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone think of this?

http://www.slate.com/id/2248901/


For people too damned lazy to click on it it talks about the push to explain the miracles described in exodus among certain academics.

Do you think this takes anything away from the exodus story by demystifying it, or does it contribute to it, make it more real?

At the end of the article the author quotes someone as saying what makes all these events miraculous was not their inexplicableness (real word?) but their timing, what do people think about that.

Ever heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? He wrote a book entitled Worlds in Collision in the early 50s which made quite a stir in the scientific community, the astronomical end at least. He stated that events like those described in the Bible in Egypt during the time of the Exodus of the Israelites was due to astronomical happenings at that time. Might be worth a read considering your interest in this subject.


And before anyone jumps in and says that Velikovsky was mad, he made two very important scientific predictions that were both born out in time. One was the prediction that Venus was much hotter that what was then known and accepted about the planet at the time, and that Jupiter emits radio noises. Both predictions were scoffed at by the leading experts of the day as ridiculous and then low and behold, the man turned out to be right. more on that here.

Here's a letter Albert Einstein wrote to him in 1955 in relation to Worlds in Collision:

17/03/55

Dear Mr. and dear Mrs Velikovsky!

At the occasion of this unpropitious birthday you have presented me once more with the fruits of an almost eruptive productivity. I look forward with pleasure to reading the historical book that does not bring into danger the toes of my guild. How it stands with the toes of the other faculty, I do not know as yet. I think of the touching prayer: “Holy St. Florian, spare my house, put fire to others!”

I have already carefully read the first volume of the memoirs to “Worlds in Collision,” and have supplied it with a few marginal notes in pencil that can be easily erased. I admire your dramatic talent and also the art and strightforwardness of Thackrey who has compelled the roaring astronomical lion to pull in a little his royal tail without showing enough respect for the truth. I would be happy if you, too, could enjoy the whole episode from its funny side.

Unimaginable letter debts and unread manuscripts that were sent in force me to be brief. Thanks to both of you and friendly wishes,

Your,
A. Einstein

Click here to read the whole series of correspondence between both scientists. Fascinating stuff you will agree. Worlds in Collision was found open on Albert Einstein's desk after his death. It was probably the last book he read.

In any case, that does not mean that I agree with his conclusions about what really caused the events described in the Bible but he was a genuinely gifted scientist and one who was very badly treated by his peers (with the exception of Albert E of course) for simply having ideas that did not tie in with their own. Anyway, give it a read sometime.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, people are fairly good at working out probabilities.

No they most certainly are not.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000727.html

People are incredibly stupid with probability. This is why people buy lotto tickets or gamble.

Most people can understand that a succession of amazing coincidences happening just when you need them is rather improbable.

One day I found a euro on the street and bought a scratch card with it and won 50 euro which just so happened to be the amount I needed to buy a book that day + enough left over exactly for my usual cup of coffee and a box of cigarettes. Wow thats amazing! :rolleyes:

Have you studied probability ?

People are incredibly bad with probability. Walk in to any casino for observable instances.

People think they have systems for roulette, poker, blackjack etc. If your sitting at a roulette table and the last 9 times a red came out whats the chances that the 10th time will be a red ? Exactly the same as it was for the last 9 times. Yet most people don't realise that.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

No they most certainly are not.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000727.html

People are incredibly stupid with probability. This is why people buy lotto tickets or gamble.



One day I found a euro on the street and bought a scratch card with it and won 50 euro which just so happened to be the amount I needed to buy a book that day + enough left over exactly for my usual cup of coffee and a box of cigarettes. Wow thats amazing! :rolleyes:

Have you studied probability ?

People are incredibly bad with probability. Walk in to any casino for observable instances.

People think they have systems for roulette, poker, blackjack etc. If your sitting at a roulette table and the last 9 times a red came out whats the chances that the 10th time will be a red ? Exactly the same as it was for the last 9 times. Yet most people don't realise that.

Maybe you should have read my earlier post?

Wicknight was responding to an earlier post of mine where I specifically mentioned the kind of probabilities I was talking about.

Armas22

I read a book that explained the events of Exodus as a consequence of the eruption of Thera, somewhere around 1600BC. The book also linked Exodus to the temporary change in Egyptian religion under Akhenaten, the turn to the cult of the Aten. Would God blow up an island, wreck the Minoan civilisation and kill tens of thousands to facilitate the Exodus? Hardly. But I suppose it's not a problem for God to decide to use a natural event to assist His purposes.

Zombrex

Armas22 wrote: »

I read a book that explained the events of Exodus as a consequence of the eruption of Thera, somewhere around 1600BC. The book also linked Exodus to the temporary change in Egyptian religion under Akhenaten, the turn to the cult of the Aten. Would God blow up an island, wreck the Minoan civilisation and kill tens of thousands to facilitate the Exodus? Hardly. But I suppose it's not a problem for God to decide to use a natural event to assist His purposes.

Historians can't decide where Exodus is to fit in the time scale of Egypt because frankly there is no Egyptian record of Exodus happening, and the Egyptians were pretty good at records.

The common historical consensus is that Exodus is not an actual historical event, but an amalgamation of different stories and possible events.

This makes explaining the individual miracles some what easier.

Armas22

Wicknight wrote: »

Historians can't decide where Exodus is to fit in the time scale of Egypt because frankly there is no Egyptian record of Exodus happening, and the Egyptians were pretty good at records.

The common historical consensus is that Exodus is not an actual historical event, but an amalgamation of different stories and possible events.

This makes explaining the individual miracles some what easier.

Granted. However, it is not unknown for regimes and civilisations to suppress things they were embarrassed about, so perhaps the Egyptians might not want to publicise an event like the Exodus. No use advertising your helplessness to those militarily capable neighbours, whether Hittites or Assyrians or whoever! Anyway, various Egyptian regimes were pretty good at trying to erase historical evidence - the anti-atenist reaction, for example. I visited a site in Egypt where many of the faces and effigies carved in marble had been deliberately obliterated by a successor regime - can't quite remember the name of the site, but it was built, I think, by the female pharoah Hatshepsut (I think some western tourists were gunned down by extremists there a number of years ago).