How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

Or confirmation bias is rejecting what doesn't agree with your opinion.

As for not finding God in the Bible ? There are no real parts of the Bible that would refer to God as merely a non-existent metaphor.

Not really. Take this for example:

You are given the numbers 2,4,6. You are allowed to guess the next number and I will tell you if you are right or wrong and it is up to you to determine what the pattern is. When this was done in my cognitive science class, everyone went 8, 10, 12. That is confirmation bias. You are not actively rejecting anything, you are just looking for the evidence that agrees with your hypothesis.

I think you may have misinterpreted my last sentence because of the awkward sentence structure. What I meant to say was that religious people dismiss the EVIDENCE of god's non-existence as a metaphor. For example, the story of adam and eve. Hope that clears that up.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

Not really. Take this for example:

You are given the numbers 2,4,6. You are allowed to guess the next number and I will tell you if you are right or wrong and it is up to you to determine what the pattern is. When this was done in my cognitive science class, everyone went 8, 10, 12. That is confirmation bias. You are not actively rejecting anything, you are just looking for the evidence that agrees with your hypothesis.

This is equally possible in the case of atheism. Going in with the presupposition that the Bible is a load of nonsense and then reading it with that intention, discrediting every piece along the way without thinking about it with a clear mind will certainly bias your reading. Lets not be naiive.

Improbable wrote: »

I think you may have misinterpreted my last sentence because of the awkward sentence structure. What I meant to say was that religious people dismiss the EVIDENCE of god's non-existence as a metaphor. For example, the story of adam and eve. Hope that clears that up.

I believe there is indicatory evidence towards God's existence and this evidence is stronger than any reason to be an atheist.

As for dismissing "the evidence for God's non-existence in the Bible".
Personally, I do believe that Adam and Eve existed, but they more than likely existed amongst others. There is indeed Biblical reason for this (Genesis 4:34).
N.B - If you want to discuss the Genesis account further, perhaps taking it to the Bible Creation and Prophesy thread on the Christianity forum is best.

Improbable wrote: »

If you are an intelligent, critical thinking individual, how can you claim to believe in the notion that a book of fairy tales put together long after the events it describes occurred can be a factually accurate record?

By the by, this question is about as fallacious to ask "When did you beat your wife?". It assumes that you've beaten your wife.

Likewise your claim that the Bible is a book of "fairy tales" in the middle of the question does the exact same. It's a logical fallacy, begging the question (petitio principii).

As for put together long after the events, this is only partially true. The books were written within decades of the events (the closest being 15 years after events). What you mean is that they weren't compiled into one volume until the Council of Nicea, which of course is correct.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

This is equally possible in the case of atheism. Going in with the presupposition that the Bible is a load of nonsense and then reading it with that intention, discrediting every piece along the way without thinking about it with a clear mind will certainly bias your reading. Lets not be naiive.

I'm going to go off and read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone with no presuppositions at all. To do otherwise would be naiive.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

this distinction isn't by any means universally accepted. That's my point.

Out of interest did you read what I wrote? I'm asking coz I've pointed out four times that the distinction is not always appreciated. That means that we agree, since you have also pointed out three/four times that the distinction is not always appreciated.

I'm simply suggesting that the distinction is useful. Think Socrates here, rather than Georgias.

// Gives up.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

I'm going to go off and read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone with no presuppositions at all. To do otherwise would be naiive.

Yes, go do that. I don't know what else to say to you apart from this. :pac:*

* For those of you who are potentially interested in what I actually do think. The difference is obvious. Harry Potter is written with the intention of being fiction. There is textual evidence to suggest that this is not true of the Bible.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, go do that. I don't know what else to say to you apart from this. :pac:*

* For those of you who are potentially interested in what I actually do think. The difference is obvious. Harry Potter is written with the intention of being fiction. There is textual evidence to suggest that this is not true of the Bible.

When you read the bible, you suppose it to be largely non fiction. That's a presupposition. Its very difficult to know what intention the writers of the bible had, since parts of it are considered to be analogy by some, where the very same parts are considered to be true by others.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

* For those of you who are potentially interested in what I actually do think. The difference is obvious. Harry Potter is written with the intention of being fiction. There is textual evidence to suggest that this is not true of the Bible.

Well, except the stuff that supposed to be a metaphor of course....

philologos

Not at all dvpower anyone with any ability of reading comprehension will be able to determine that it was intended to be taken as non-fiction:

Two examples:

John 20:30-31 wrote:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Luke 1:1-4 wrote:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

It would as I would see it be a clear example of confirmation bias to suggest that either of these were written with the intent of being fiction.

The clear intention is to record events that happened from the writers perspective. You might argue that the events were 100% tripe, but they certainly were never written with the intent of being fiction.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all dvpower anyone with any ability of reading comprehension will be able to determine that it was intended to be taken as non-fiction:

Two examples:




It would as I would see it be a clear example of confirmation bias to suggest that either of these were written with the intent of being fiction.

The clear intention is to record events that happened from the writers perspective. You might argue that the events were 100% tripe, but they certainly were never written with the intent of being fiction.

Loads of fiction is written in that style :pac:

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Well, except the stuff that supposed to be a metaphor of course....

Indeed, and reading will help you to determine these also.

Two examples Isaiah 5:1-7, Luke 10:25-38

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The clear intention is to record events that happened from the writers perspective. You might argue that the events were 100% tripe, but they certainly were never written with the intent of being fiction.

One of my favourite books, The Prestige, is written as an account from the diary of a journalist with extracts from diaries of two turn of the century magicians.
So since in the text it says it's a true account therefore it must be a true account?

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

This is equally possible in the case of atheism. Going in with the presupposition that the Bible is a load of nonsense and then reading it with that intention, discrediting every piece along the way without thinking about it with a clear mind will certainly bias your reading. Lets not be naiive.

I never said that atheists are not susceptible to confirmation bias. I was simply correcting you on what confirmation bias is. It is not the active rejection of opposing information, it is the tendency to only look for information which is favourable to the presupposition.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe there is indicatory evidence towards God's existence and this evidence is stronger than any reason to be an atheist.

You believe it exists. Does not mean that it does. But just out of interest, what is the evidence?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for dismissing "the evidence for God's non-existence in the Bible".
Personally, I do believe that Adam and Eve existed, but they more than likely existed amongst others. There is indeed Biblical reason for this (Genesis 4:34).

I looked for this verse but could not find it. Could you point me to the version or a link which has it?

Jakkass wrote: »

N.B - If you want to discuss the Genesis account further, perhaps taking it to the Bible Creation and Prophesy thread on the Christianity forum is best.

I'm wary of posting in the christianity forum as I do tend to get irritated fairly easily and I'd just get myself in trouble.

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, this question is about as fallacious to ask "When did you beat your wife?". It assumes that you've beaten your wife.

Likewise your claim that the Bible is a book of "fairy tales" in the middle of the question does the exact same. It's a logical fallacy, begging the question (petitio principii).

Feel free to replace fairy tales with the word bible. Makes no difference to me.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for put together long after the events, this is only partially true. The books were written within decades of the events (the closest being 15 years after events). What you mean is that they weren't compiled into one volume until the Council of Nicea, which of course is correct.

No I actually meant what I said. The closest being 15 years and the latest being around the 2nd century B.C. Now, I'll admit that I don't know the bible inside out, I only know about some parts of it in very broad strokes. But isn't it more than likely that if the writing of it was delayed for such a time, that the details may indeed be inaccurate?

In addition, you never answered my first question:

Why do you think that the deity your particular religion perpetrates is any more real than any other religions deity?

alex73

Jakkass wrote: »

The clear intention is to record events that happened from the writers perspective. You might argue that the events were 100% tripe, but they certainly were never written with the intent of being fiction.

Jakkass, Even the apostles themselves did not fully believe, Thomas would only believe in the risen Christ once he put his hand in his wounds.. If it was hard for those who knew him... its going to be more difficult 2000 years later with rampant secularism to convince others of the truths of Faith...

The Gospels are not fiction, Christ really did exist, he performed many miracles, he died for us and resurrected.

The problem with Christians is that many to lead by example.

I see a post below on if Christ was an Alien... The figure of Christ disconcerts people. I suppose Christ would be asking what more he needed to do to proof that God his father existed, how many miracles did need to perform?

Improbable

alex73 wrote: »

Jakkass, Even the apostles themselves did not fully believe, Thomas would only believe in the risen Christ once he put his hand in his wounds.. If it was hard for those who knew him... its going to be more difficult 2000 years later with rampant secularism to convince others of the truths of Faith...

The Gospels are not fiction, Christ really did exist, he performed many miracles, he died for us and resurrected.

The problem with Christians is that many to lead by example.

I see a post below on if Christ was an Alien... The figure of Christ disconcerts people. I suppose Christ would be asking what more he needed to do to proof that God his father existed, how many miracles did need to perform?

He would need to do it in the modern era in front of a panel of scientists. But unfortunately, it all took place back in history when people only had the tiniest inkling of what was going on in the world around them.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Two examples Isaiah 5:1-7,

Some bollocks about a vineyard....

Jakkass wrote: »

Luke 10:25-38

And some bollocks with a lawyer....

Neither lead me to understand why some of the bible is made up then some of it is true.

How exactly do you tell the difference?

philologos

Both are allegorical, they have an underlying truth in them. That's the purpose of parable.

alex73: I believe the Bible is true, I.E - Not fiction.

King Mob: Context is always a crucial tool. Another case is the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4, where Jesus both gives the parable and explanation. He says that he will speak to the people in parable. If one reads and assesses where things are in the whole picture, it really does help in reading the Bible.

When you're reading a book of the Bible, you have to understand that it may well differ in genre from the other 65. You have to ask yourself, what kind of book is this, and then further on from that you have to ask yourself where is this chapter placed in comparison to the others, what is the substance of what is being said. Naturally, as context is so important there are numerous books on how to read the Bible while most effectively regarding the context.

It is the same with any literary text including philosophy and classics. In some cases you may need to use a concordance to analyse the original Greek and Hebrew. Again, the same issues come up in analysing ancient, and even medieval / renaissance texts.

Improbable: That's because that verse doesn't exist, I made a typo. Genesis 4:13-14

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Both are allegorical, they have an underlying truth in them. That's the purpose of parable.

So then it could be that they never actually happened?

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: Context is always a crucial tool. Another case is the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4, where Jesus both gives the parable and explanation. He says that he will speak to the people in parable. If one reads and assesses where things are in the whole picture, it really does help in reading the Bible.

When you're reading a book of the Bible, you have to understand that it may well differ in genre from the other 65. You have to ask yourself, what kind of book is this, and then further on from that you have to ask yourself where is this chapter placed in comparison to the others, what is the substance of what is being said. Naturally, as context is so important there are numerous books on how to read the Bible while most effectively regarding the context.

It is the same with any literary text including philosophy and classics. In some cases you may need to use a concordance to analyse the original Greek and Hebrew. Again, the same issues come up in analysing ancient, and even medieval / renaissance texts.

Wow that sounds almost like a collection of texts written by people, not the infallible texts of an all powerful deity....

alex73

Improbable wrote: »

He would need to do it in the modern era in front of a panel of scientists. But unfortunately, it all took place back in history when people only had the tiniest inkling of what was going on in the world around them.

Even in the modern era that are miracles that science can't explain. A jewish doctor testified that Therese Neumann did not eat/drink for a year. (other than a tiny peach of bread given a mass).

The signs are there for people to see

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So then it could be that they never actually happened?

The parables? - The parables more than likely didn't. They are used as a rhetorical device to explain a deeper life truth. If we took the parables literally we would assume that Jesus would be talking about Middle Eastern agriculture for the most part.

King Mob wrote: »

Wow that sounds almost like a collection of texts written by people, not the infallible texts of an all powerful deity....

I don't consider the use of parable a flaw personally :pac:

alex73

alex73 wrote: »

Even in the modern era that are miracles that science can't explain. A jewish doctor testified that Therese Neumann did not eat/drink for a year. (other than a tiny peach of bread given a mass).

The signs are there for people to see

Yea and I once heard of a dude that sawed a lady in half.

Source for your claim?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The parables? - The parables more than likely didn't. They are used as a rhetorical device to explain a deeper life truth. If we took the parables literally we would assume that Jesus would be talking about Middle Eastern agriculture for the most part.

How do you know that he actually sat down to tell these stories?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider the use of parable a flaw personally :pac:

I meant the fact you have to interpret everything. You'd think being all powerful and all knowing he'd have been able to make it so it would be transcendental. Or at least not look like a collection of stories most of which aren't true written by sheepherders and edited for political reason.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that he actually sat down to tell these stories?

Mainly the New Testament admittedly. Some other historical sources go albeit in less detail to describe that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was a teacher with a following.

King Mob wrote: »

I meant the fact you have to interpret everything. You'd think being all powerful and all knowing he'd have been able to make it so it would be transcendental. Or at least not look like a collection of stories most of which aren't true written by sheepherders and edited for political reason.

It doesn't look like this at all from what I see. It looks like a rich, and complete compendium of texts compiled over centuries with different genres. I would consider the variety to be beneficial rather than a hindrance as you would. A strength of the Bible is that there are texts from all situations and from a large timescale so that we on analysing the context can apply them to our lives.

Of course I thank God for the depth of my relationship with Him, which isn't just centred on my reading, but also in my every day experience. It mostly involves stumbling after Him admittedly

Improbable

alex73 wrote: »

Even in the modern era that are miracles that science can't explain. A jewish doctor testified that Therese Neumann did not eat/drink for a year. (other than a tiny peach of bread given a mass).

The signs are there for people to see

Actually, it was a doctor and 4 franciscan nurses. Presumably these people were incapable of being mistaken? Or lieing? This is not evidence, this is hearsay at best.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Mainly the New Testament admittedly. Some other historical sources go albeit in less detail to describe that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was a teacher with a following.

Yea, heard that before, none of the other sources actually show any of the important details of his life that you think make him the son of god.
The bible is the only source for accounts of him actually doing any miracles or fulfilling ancient prophecies.

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't look like this at all from what I see.

Of course it doesn't to you, you've already concluded it's the word of god.
You're not basing this opinion on facts.

Jakkass wrote: »

It looks like a rich, and complete compendium of texts compiled over centuries with different genres. I would consider the variety to be beneficial rather than a hindrance as you would. A strength of the Bible is that there are texts from all situations and from a large timescale so that we on analysing the context can apply them to our lives.

Of course I thank God for the depth of my relationship with Him, which isn't just centred on my reading, but also in my every day experience. It mostly involves stumbling after Him admittedly

That doesn't actually address my question at all.
Why isn't it transcendental?
Why does it contain untruths?

alex73

Improbable wrote: »

Actually, it was a doctor and 4 franciscan nurses. Presumably these people were incapable of being mistaken? Or lieing? This is not evidence, this is hearsay at best.

:-) don't believe all you read on wikipedia!

Improbable

As long as the references check out, I have no concerns with using it for debating purposes. But I wouldn't base my opinions on a book that was written long before referencing existed and which is quite undoubtedly less reliable than wikipedia...

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

That doesn't actually address my question at all.
Why isn't it transcendental?
Why does it contain untruths?

In Christian thinking the Bible is revealed from God to mankind so surely that would come under "transcendental" no?

Why does it contain untruths? - This only works if one considers parables to be untruths. Personally, I consider them to be a rhetorical device used to explain the truth.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

In Christian thinking the Bible is revealed from God to mankind so surely that would come under "transcendental" no?

Why isn't it apparent that it's true? Why does it give a totally different account of the origins of the planet?

Jakkass wrote: »

Why does it contain untruths? - This only works if one considers parables to be untruths. Personally, I consider them to be a rhetorical device used to explain the truth.

No there's plenty of untruths. I'm not referring to parables.

Can you explain why the bible says hares chew cud when this is demonstrably not true?
Can you explain why the bible says the circumference of a circle is three times it's diameter, when this is mathematically provable to be not true?

What truth is being explained here?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Why isn't it apparent that it's true? Why does it give a totally different account of the origins of the planet?

I'd argue that it is apparent as I would see it at present one strains to see much of an alternative apart from that God caused the universe to be. There is also a huge difficulty in working out the origins of morality as we've been through already.

King Mob wrote: »

No there's plenty of untruths. I'm not referring to parables.

Is there?

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain why the bible says hares chew cud when this is demonstrably not true?
Can you explain why the bible says the circumference of a circle is three times it's diameter, when this is mathematically provable to be not true?

We've already been through the Bible and pi being 3 in the Funny Side of Religion thread, PDN and I made responses to it. Take a search through it.

As for the rabbits chewing the cud. This is pretty much down to Hebrew words well, differing from English.

Having done more research, the term caecotrophy post dates by a long shot the Ancient Hebrews, so it is unreasonable to expect that the Ancient Hebrews would use this.

It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter contains certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense

It would be an anachronism to use this argument.

I think it would be best if we didn't go through every objection to Biblical infallibility on this thread though. Don't you?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that it is apparent as I would see it at present one strains to see much of an alternative apart from that God caused the universe to be. There is also a huge difficulty in working out the origins of morality as we've been through already.

Again you seem to have difficultly with this whole argument from incredulity thing.

So why doesn't everyone one instantly see that the bible is true?

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there?

Yes plenty. Two I've listed, we'll stick to those for now.

Jakkass wrote: »

We've already been through the Bible and pi being 3 in the Funny Side of Religion thread, PDN and I made responses to it. Take a search through it.

Yup read it, silly explanations.
Since they where explaining the dimensions of this thing so accurately, why did they suddenly decide to round down, by a significant amount? 31.4 is a lot different to 30 or even 31. They don't even need decimal points.

And why would it matter if the Israelites couldn't accurately measure pi? Why didn't god tell them? And even then they still wouldn't even need pi to accurately measure the circumference.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the rabbits chewing the cud. This is pretty much down to Hebrew words well, differing from English.

So why would there be a translation issue at all?

Jakkass wrote: »

Having done more research, the term caecotrophy post dates by a long shot the Ancient Hebrews, so it is unreasonable to expect that the Ancient Hebrews would use this.

It would be an anachronism to use this argument.

Hold up.
Why would it matter if the ancient Hebrews knew the term or not?
Surely if they where receiving divine wisdom they would know that hares don't chew cud then not include them in a list of animals that actually do.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it would be best if we didn't go through every objection to Biblical infallibility on this thread though. Don't you?

We don't have to, we only need one non-truth to show the bible is fallible.
Which you've kinda already admitted btw.
You're argument is that the truth revealed by god was inaccurately interpreted due to inadvertences in Hebrew language and math.
Therefore the bible is fallible.