[Epiph]

doxa, on Nov 24 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

I see, pardon me for thinking your saying things your not. My point are basically that i refute the idea that religion and science would stand opposed to each other. I understand that you distinguish between your belief and mine, but it is my opinion that science and proven facts can go both ways. I suppose you disagree.

Doxa, the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

[frookenhauer]

Its time for some more Genesis...In the last chapter we saw the wife seller Abram perform his nefarious act to save his skin and to fill his pocket, but there is more to this pathetic wastrel than meets the eye, watch him transform in Chapter 14...

Quote

1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela--the same is Zoar. 3 All these came as allies unto the vale of Siddim--the same is the Salt Sea. 4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they turned back, and came to En-mishpat--the same is Kadesh--and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela--the same is Zoar; and they set the battle in array against them in the vale of Siddim; 9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five. 10 Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew--now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. 17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, at the vale of Shaveh--the same is the King's Vale. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. 19 And he blessed him, and said: 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.' And he gave him a tenth of all. 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram: 'Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.' 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom: 'I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say: I have made Abram rich; 24 save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion.' {S}

Ah! A war! and its led by loads of kings...Not of nations, but more like city states. And where do all these non believers come from, too little time has passed for people to forget that god had drowned the Earth? Lot moves away from Abram and lives in Sodom...I thought he was taking over Jordan for it was given to him by Abram, yet he lives in thrall to the king of Sodom...Guess he got buggered out of his inheritance And Abram is now a Hebrew, and so they are named...Anyway Lot gets kidnapped and they take all his goods and Now that Abram the wife swapping wimp has an army...318 men...he suddenly develops a set of balls and hunts down these kings and brings back Lot and all the goods and those great kings of Sodom et al. We are also introduced to the King of Salem who is also a priest of the God...So Hebrews, Priests and amazingly It seems Abraham has refused his bounty...Very interesting, in the last chapter he sold his wifes affections and hand in marriage for a few asses and a chapter later he gives up his right to a tenth of a kings ransom...Maybe all that time spent near the canaanite cultic shrine did him good or maybe his earlier escapades meant he was already rich...I'm not a fan of this poor excuse for a man, because his earlier actions inflicted the ever wrathful wrath of god onto Egypt.

The time line is getting a little hazy now, but bronze age shards of pottery have been found at the site which are dated at around 2600-2000 BC, so we are in the right era I suppose. We could do with a chapter devoted to ages and dates, very useful I find It also seems that right now Gods people are happy with Sodom and Gomorrah, but how long that lasts...

[Aleksandrov]

Abraham is a steam-powered machine in the stone age. He's unstoppable with the power of God coursing through him. Now in a short amount of time (the Bible is hazy on this issue) he's gone from too afraid to face the Pharaoh, to fighting multiple kings at the same time. Perhaps the Egyptians were strength incarnate, or Abraham can start blackmailing people just God's divine power.

Quote

23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say: I have made Abram rich

Oh wow, was this really meant to be put in here. They have to give him stuff anyway or God will say you didn't treat my messenger right (happens latter on in the Bible) and you gave him peanuts.
I'm no fan of Monarchy at it's best, so I was actually rooting for Abraham here. The Bible, like all "good" works of stories, has really made the antagonists seem like a nasty bunch of fellas.

Don't worry, Sodom will get it when the men want to sleep with the angels and "get to know them". Then clever Lot decides to save the angel by offering his virgin daughter. But you should know better than give females to homosexuals! But I'm jumping the gun here, so we'll read on.

[frookenhauer]

I am so looking forward to those sections...There is much to discuss in terms of ethics and morality, but for now the die is cast for chapter 15...

Quote

1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.' 2 And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?' 3 And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.' 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying: 'This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.' 5 And He brought him forth abroad, and said: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them'; and He said unto him: 'So shall thy seed be.' 6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And He said unto him: 'I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.' 8 And he said: 'O Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?' 9 And He said unto him: 'Take Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon.' 10 And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other; but the birds divided he not. 11 And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. 12 And it came to pass, that, when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, a dread, even a great darkness, fell upon him. 13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.' 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. 18 In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates; 19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, 20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, 21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.' {S}

Abraham wants kids, he's getting broody and in a vision God comes to him...This is interesting because this is the first time a vision is mentioned...Normally its as if they are literally having a one to one with God, you know sitting on the porch, shooting the breeze. Kind of puts that theory that there are definitely different authors and different schools of thought that have added to the patchwork of the bible at various times into focus, this is the first time I would really have suspected, or maybe not, I am quite dumb really . Anyway, God promises Abraham all kinds of things including children and land...Lots of it, but he also prophesises that there will be trouble ahead for his descendants, four hundred years worth...Also there is some more sacrifice, yet this time there is no sweet smell of burning flesh for gods nostrils, he halves the carcasses of the three year old animals instead, so more divergence from the norm, interesting. And then he blesses Abraham the wife seller the lands between the Nile and Euphrates, which is all the way up to modern day Iraq, which is a hell of a lot of desert to be giving away to just one man...

I mean the whole world to choose from and he gives his favourite a bleeding patch of land that is too hot to touch. It just goes to show, those authors of the bible did not really know much of the world did they? Where is the rest of Africa...I suppose that the desert was too much to handle. Europe? they hadn't actually heard of it, or India and you can forget the Americas, but for a people of God, who knows all you'd have thought he'd have kept them informed. Oh and there are a bunh of people called Girgashites...They must have stunk a bit

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Nov 24 2008, 11:56 PM, said:

the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

People keep saying this, and I honestly don't understand why. I mean, I can see why some scientific people have a need to set religion and science against each other, because to them (you) they are different concepts, set apart.

But with a different perspective and another philosophical view, there is no conflict between science and religion. It's one of the things I've been trying to explain in threads here, but noone seem to be able to grasp how I (and others) see this.

Do you think I:
1. am lying.
2. is in denial.
3. don't understand science.

If you anyone of those options is what you think, you'll excuse me for getting increasingly annoyed. Because instead of trying to understand this view that you find so difficult to swallow, you arrogantly assume that since it doesn't make sense to you, it cannot make sense for anybody else, with a different philosophical standpoint.
---
What's so hard to understand?

Science is open for interpretation.
Genesis is open for interpretation.
The bible is vague on lots of points, and science is unbiased.

Science in itself has never posed a problem for bible believers. What has posed a problem is the humanists (anti religion) claiming science as their own invention. It is not. It is just the propaganda the humanists aggressively, and successfully, have made people swallow (imo). True Science is a tool, not an ideology.

The core issue here seems to be that you assume you know how I and other bible believers see the bible. You don't. It comes down to 3 options for you; do you believe:
1. There is only one true interpretation of the bible, and bible believers have completely misunderstood it.
2. There is only one true interpretation of any scientific theory, and the bible believers have completely misunderstood them.
3. Science is not as bible-proof as you thought.

Option 3 is not an option for you, so you choose either of the other ones. Is that a correct analysis?

To hammer home my point: Science is not an ideology in itself - the people using science brings their own ideology into it. This is not a difficult philosophical concept. Even if you disagree, you should be able to understand it. And with that perspective, you should have no trouble understanding, that for us having that philosophical view, it changes everything.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 26 November 2008 - 02:08 AM

[frookenhauer]

We could have used you here a few days ago when Doxa was on the scene, I felt sorry for the guy (He was fighting a battle on many fronts) and thought about asking you to side with him, but didn't think you'd be interested...I'm very much glad to have you join the debate

In a lot of respects Epiphs statement is one I subscribe to because, especially with the the Genesis model of creation, science stands diametrically opposed to the bible almost wherever the two meet. I am coming round to understanding your thinking...But I am not sure I understand what you mean by humanists claiming science as their own invention.

I like the science is not bible-proof, but before I jump to any conclusions, would you mind elaborating?

It also does seem that the Humanists and their ilk, I am a fence sitter so I don't count, also use science as a tool to attack the veracity of the bible. I'm doing my own little expose using these very tools and those positions I talked about earlier are examples such as:

Physics showing that the earth revolves around the sun, is roughly 4.6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 20 billion. Bible shows creation began 6000 years ago and the sun does the revolving.

Archaeological science shows we were hunter gatherers and Mesopotamian peoples were Polytheists and iron working was invented roughly 1000BC. The Bible has us farming from the off, Mesopotamians were proto Hebrews and we were well versed with Iron very early in the Saga, I think it was Cains grandson or close to.

Biology is more than familiar with evolution and there are enough pieces of the puzzle to make a very strong case, but the bible ignores this and lets not forget the dinosaur bones.

Geography can be applied as most of Genesis takes place in the areas between the Tigris and the Nile, its a big old world lets not forget

The flood happened just over 2000BC...4000 years is not enough to get us to where we are today in terms of diversity, population and spread.

Science may be a tool, but it's why the humanists are here in the first place, no wonder its their ideology ...And in many ways mine too.

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 26 November 2008 - 02:20 PM

[Terez]

Gem, you seem to have glossed over a few points in that Epiph quote:

Epiph said:

the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

He acknowledged that faith, being what it is, can coexist with science. But he specifies that you cannot take the Genesis creation story literally without believing something that truly is in opposition with science.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Nov 26 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

Gem, you seem to have glossed over a few points in that Epiph quote:

Epiph said:

the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

He acknowledged that faith, being what it is, can coexist with science. But he specifies that you cannot take the Genesis creation story literally without believing something that truly is in opposition with science.

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed. Secondly, taking the Genesis creation story literally, as you put it, highlights one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. There is no straightforward way to take it literally, unless you mean there is only one obvious interpretation of the text.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from your point of view bible believers take everything literally because we believe everything in the bible to be true. But what does literally mean, really? Actually believing in the bible opens up a whole new level of intellectual thinking around it - because so much about for instance the Genesis story is very vague. On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

When something might seem obvious to you, we instead think: hey how does God think about that? what did He do? You can see how that changes how we look at the text - suddenly there's tons of more layers to work with.

To us it's more of a process of getting to know God and then interpret the bible through that. We also get to know God through the bible - it's its purpose.

[frookenhauer]

Actually I find Genesis to be very clear cut: Day 1-6 were clearly mapped out: Events are laid out in order. The time until Noah was born was clearly laid out and one only needed a calculator to work out the time. Genesis clearly attempts to own ancient civilizations...The list goes on, but I've now gone through 15 chapters of genesis and I find it fairly straightforward in its approach.

These hidden layers are only visible if you believe? That sounds very supernatural Gem. Is that what you mean? And the points I have made in the post prior to this are as yet unchallenged...Do they stand?

In my kind of God view I would prefer the word of God to have been the literal truth, to have been unassailable, able stand on its own without the compromise of seeking deeper meaning. The reason for this is that I mostly subscribe to the idea of a perfect being, a creator and this makes me suspicious of a god who is as imperfect as the beings he created in his own image...The chapters I've read so far are testament to this point, he is an angry, wrathful, biased and has seriously got it in for the Egyptians...

[Epiph]

First of all, she, people. I have lady-parts.

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

Terez, on Nov 26 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

Gem, you seem to have glossed over a few points in that Epiph quote:

Epiph said:

the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

He acknowledged that faith, being what it is, can coexist with science. But he specifies that you cannot take the Genesis creation story literally without believing something that truly is in opposition with science.

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed. Secondly, taking the Genesis creation story literally, as you put it, highlights one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. There is no straightforward way to take it literally, unless you mean there is only one obvious interpretation of the text.

And yet, there are many people who do take the bible literally. My grandmother is one of them. I said specifically that science and religion can happily coexist--the whole point of faith is to believe something without proof. So, of course, science and religion can coexist. I said only that science, as we currently understand it, cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. Hell, I didn't even say that any about the bible as a whole. Also, thanks for having my back, Terez.

Further, if you are going ask for understanding and suspension of disbelief from people, you should a) assume you are getting it and do the same for the people you are talking to. There is no point in the exchange of information if neither side is open to being convinced of anything. Assumption is a two-way street.

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but from your point of view bible believers take everything literally because we believe everything in the bible to be true. But what does literally mean, really? Actually believing in the bible opens up a whole new level of intellectual thinking around it - because so much about for instance the Genesis story is very vague. On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

You are wrong. You are being defensive and putting words in my mouth. I grew up in a very very very spiritual household, in a very very very spiritual community, full of people who are constantly trying to prove the benefits of their spiritual practice with science. While I, personally, have veered from that perspective, I understand all the shades of gray that come with faith. I understand the comforting allure of belief. Most of all, I totally respect it. In fact, I envy people with a firm sense of faith, because of the comfort it provides.

However, there are Christians who take Genesis, and the Bible as a whole, literally, to the letter. That attitude can't coexist with science as we currently understand it (the beauty of science is that, with enough rigorous scientific examination, it will change it's collective mind). The body of current scientific knowledge disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is incredibly easy to look at the Genesis story as symbolic. A rigorous scientific explanation of the creation of the world, given to man by God, at the time that the Bible was written down would have sounded ridiculous to people. So even assuming that the Bible is the divine word given to man by God, one can justify the language of the Bible as it stands.

Personally, I find the idea that God, while capable of anything and everything, would randomly jerk around with the universe distasteful. If God is going to set down rules for the behavior of his worshippers, wouldn't he, likewise, set down rules for the behavior of the universe he created? And once those rules were set down, why wouldn't he let the universe abide by them? There is enough room for symbolic interpretation of Genesis, once you admit you are open to that, without needing to bring the omnipotence of God into the discussion.

Quote

When something might seem obvious to you, we instead think: hey how does God think about that? what did He do? You can see how that changes how we look at the text - suddenly there's tons of more layers to work with.

Can you elaborate?

Quote

To us it's more of a process of getting to know God and then interpret the bible through that. We also get to know God through the bible - it's its purpose.

I can see that being the purpose of the New Testament, but the Old Testament has always seemed to me to be written as a religious manual: Here is how God wants you to act.

frook said:

These hidden layers are only visible if you believe? That sounds very supernatural Gem. Is that what you mean? And the points I have made in the post prior to this are as yet unchallenged...Do they stand?

Frook, that's sort of the point of religion. The supernatural, faith, belief. You can't have a discussion about religion without assuming that, yes, there is something that believers see that non-believers don't.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 26 November 2008 - 06:03 PM

[Aleksandrov]

Morning all,

Gem said:

People keep saying this, and I honestly don't understand why. I mean, I can see why some scientific people have a need to set religion and science against each other, because to them (you) they are different concepts, set apart.

Science is based on Fact; Religion is based on Faith. That is the fundamental difference.
The same could be said about religious people, in fact in the course of human history is has been really the religious people who controlled thought and knowledge to keep Science in the dark. It's only really in the last 100 to 200 years has science really flourished with anyone controlling it. In the modern times however, the point is moot.

Gem said:

But with a different perspective and another philosophical view, there is no conflict between science and religion. It's one of the things I've been trying to explain in threads here, but noone seem to be able to grasp how I (and others) see this.

I see it, people would believe that religion is more based on faith, and that you can have faith in a subject but understand the fact of others. You believe Science to be just another perspective of thinking. I agree with your line of thinking to a limit. Afterall, there are dozens of religions, each with pacts and sides in itself all on the different ways of interpreting a book and other "resources". The same goes for scientists, sometimes pieces of evidence will contradict itself so people will align themselves to the side that that has the most evidence. But it doesn't mean the others side is necessarily wrong. It just means further reasearch is needed. Now forgive if I think how you can further interpret faith and the Bible in particular to find more fact to disclaim the usual, accepted science. I suppose you have to look for more Dead Sea Scrolls and the such, but that is off the point. Scientists believe that it is the only perspective of thinking as it is based on fact, not "faith". If you can show archaelogical, geographical etc evidence there is a Big man up there, then I'm sure scientists would accommodate.

Gem said:

But with a different perspective and another philosophical view, there is no conflict between science and religion. It's one of the things I've been trying to explain in threads here, but noone seem to be able to grasp how I (and others) see this.

There is. I have yet to see a solid argument that says Science and Religion are not fundamentally different.

Gem said:

Science in itself has never posed a problem for bible believers. What has posed a problem is the humanists (anti religion) claiming science as their own invention. It is not. It is just the propaganda the humanists aggressively, and successfully, have made people swallow (imo). True Science is a tool, not an ideology.

More revisionist material. As I said previously, from the coming of Christ (and before) up to the 1600s, it has been religious people who reviled science. If you note it, the writtings of Copernicus and Darwin stired up so many disbelief is because it was directly opposed to the Church's teachings. The only "science" really not have been prosecuted was Chemistry because the Church believed it was along the line of "Since God made those materials anyway...". Humanists are not scientists I have to agree with you there, but I astonishingly see that you have made arguments for one side. Please go and check out all the Creationists out there, they are the ones with money who spew out propaganda to teach non-factual, and non-evidence based thinking to our children.
The word "Ideology" is false, the word should be changed to "Faith".

Gem said:

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed.

False, it is often the other way around. As I said before Fact will always clash with Faith. You cannot believe in hard evidence and then expect to believe in something of "faith" without seeing anything that can be proven from it. It contradicts your personal being. It is those with the perspective to value both Fact and Faith that will never oppose Science and Religion, and yes there are many out there like that.

Gem said:

Secondly, taking the Genesis creation story literally, as you put it, highlights one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. There is no straightforward way to take it literally, unless you mean there is only one obvious interpretation of the text.

Revisionist material. As I have repeated many times for the large part of human history, the Church and the "Bible-thumpers" have religiously argued that it was true, and it has to be taken literally. Only for the recent 2-300 years has the Churches claimed otherwise. While it is good to see Religion has progressed, but to me it only shows the fallacies of Religion.

Gem said:

On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

Ah this is the most interesting argument. This is the difference between Science and Faith methinks. It's not the interpretation, its that Faith can believe in so many possibilities based on so little fact. While for Science it's vice versa. The emphatic word here is possibilities. To me, there is no black and white line, there is just possibilities and probabilities to govern what I believe in. And such it is that there is no evidence to provide support Faith.

Epiph said:

However, there are Christians who take Genesis, and the Bible as a whole, literally, to the letter. That attitude can't coexist with science as we currently understand it (the beauty of science is that, with enough rigorous scientific examination, it will change it's collective mind). The body of current scientific knowledge disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I think I'm in love.

I'll end by quoting Karl Marx:

K. Marx said:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Epiph, on Nov 24 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

doxa, on Nov 24 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

I see, pardon me for thinking your saying things your not. My point are basically that i refute the idea that religion and science would stand opposed to each other. I understand that you distinguish between your belief and mine, but it is my opinion that science and proven facts can go both ways. I suppose you disagree.

Doxa, the problem is that, quite frequently, science and religion do stand opposed. Science and faith can happily coexist, faith being what it is. But you cannot accept the Genesis version of creation as literal truth and still accept science as truth.

Oh wow this duiscussion has certainly went a long way from whence my Windows went ballistic and died on me.

So let's take the first short statement that comes to mind and make it into a point just to get me going again in this duiscussion.

PP: I'm also quite drunk and going back every couple of lines to correct stupid mistakes like "quiet"

Ok... So I personally don't think that science and religion should stand opposed.

While I appreciate the scripture I don't interpret the Bible in it's literal meaning. I've said before that the underlying meaning is of much greater importance to me.

So wether the medium of the 'story' is factually correct or not is not of any significance to me. It's just a way of putting an idea through and that idea is the same 2000 years later wether or not the Earth is flat or the Americas have been discovered or instant whipped cream or sliced bread or whatever.

So science and religion do not stand opposed in my world-view and quite obviously so since I at least claim to be a Pharmacist and a Christian at the same time.

There has to be an understanding of sorts between the two world-views in order for them to coexist.

So I see religion as knowledge that governs human interaction with other humans and science as knowledge that governs interaction with the physical world. I apply science where science is needed and religion (mainly in it's cultural element) where it is needed as well.

Other than that my morality is shaped by many things and not only religion. Morality for me is the way to be a perfectly ballanced human being and religion is a part of that. While that may be so religion is not the only factor.

God is one IDEA that may help you keep a chilled out perspective on life but there are other things as well. Usually there are the things you love that you come back to in times where you might be overcome by emotion - and in those times you say to yourself "This argument is not as important to me as... say the book I'm reading right now - I'd rather agree to my peer wether this is a loss to me or not and go home (rather than keep on arguing) - read a nice book or whatever*".

The other option is fighting to the end probably ruining your mood wether you win the argument or not. Will this make you happy? Depends. But for my case I've found out that winning is not necessarily equal to happiness. Oftentimes I'm more sattisfied with putting my point through and then hoping that someone will sympathise to that and if not - well there are other things in life, no?

* In science it seems there is no intelligent choice - you either keep on arguing till you admit defeat or you bend your peer towards admitting defeat and that's not a healthy way of living. I mean certainly that's how we've gotten most of our discoveries - through people who were commited enough to fight for truth no matter what it costed them.

But at least for the present day I don't find that any of the scientific causes that we have available are worth my whole undivided attention or my full commitment.

PPP: Excuse me while I pass out now...

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 26 November 2008 - 07:54 PM

[frookenhauer]

Hi Vic, welcome back! Another person let down by Bill Gates...I hope he does a better job as a philanthropist . The present argument is in the more than capable hands of Aleksandros, terez and Epiph with me only interjecting when my puny brain manages to fire off a series of neurons correctly, I'm still doing my bible expose in the background so don't mind me....

[Epiph]

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Scientists believe that it is the only perspective of thinking as it is based on fact, not "faith". If you can show archaelogical, geographical etc evidence there is a Big man up there, then I'm sure scientists would accommodate.

First of all, for the purposes of this discussion, we should probably shy away from the use of "belief" as it relates to science, defined as systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (dictionary.com), which I think is an appropriate definition for our discussions here. To say that a scientist "believes" anything related to the body of knowledge with which he is familiar is misleading. Rather, he "thinks" or he "proves" or he "theorizes." If he is functioning on the level of belief in his work, he's doing his job wrong.

Paradoxically, any proof of God's existence negates the purpose of faith. If we suppose that the main qualifier for entrance into Heaven is righteousness based in faith (and we must, otherwise one would end up in Limbo with the righteous pagans), then God can't provide proof of his existence before Judgment Day.

Quote

Gem said:

Science in itself has never posed a problem for bible believers. What has posed a problem is the humanists (anti religion) claiming science as their own invention. It is not. It is just the propaganda the humanists aggressively, and successfully, have made people swallow (imo). True Science is a tool, not an ideology.

More revisionist material. As I said previously, from the coming of Christ (and before) up to the 1600s, it has been religious people who reviled science. If you note it, the writtings of Copernicus and Darwin stired up so many disbelief is because it was directly opposed to the Church's teachings. The only "science" really not have been prosecuted was Chemistry because the Church believed it was along the line of "Since God made those materials anyway...". Humanists are not scientists I have to agree with you there, but I astonishingly see that you have made arguments for one side. Please go and check out all the Creationists out there, they are the ones with money who spew out propaganda to teach non-factual, and non-evidence based thinking to our children.
The word "Ideology" is false, the word should be changed to "Faith".

To be perfectly fair, the Greek Humanists did come at the beginning of the western scientific and philosophical tradition. But since I assume you are talking about modern Humanists, I don't think it's fair to say that Humanist claim to have invented science. Certainly, they have taken it as their own, but that is only because once you reject faith, belief, and religion, what is left but science to explain the world around you?

Gem, what exactly is "the propaganda" being pushed, just for clarity's sake? I think you're saying that Humanist have claimed science as their own, and pushed some sort of agenda to get people to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and that this agenda has been successful. Further, I think you're saying that science should be a religious tool, rather than a belief system in its own right. Am I right? Please correct me otherwise.

Aleks, although, I agree science has most definitely been a problem for Bible believers, what is wrong with subscribing to a revisionist religious view? If you are going to be surrounded by True Believers, wouldn't you rather be surrounded by the ones who realize that the understanding of early civilization couldn't fully express the nature of the universe?

I really don't think either "ideology" or "faith" should be used with respect to science. I'm still not totally sure what Gem was trying to get across though, so I'll wait for an explanation before making anymore comments on that.

Quote

Gem said:

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed.

False, it is often the other way around. As I said before Fact will always clash with Faith. You cannot believe in hard evidence and then expect to believe in something of "faith" without seeing anything that can be proven from it. It contradicts your personal being. It is those with the perspective to value both Fact and Faith that will never oppose Science and Religion, and yes there are many out there like that.

I totally disagree. Fact and faith do not necessarily clash, they just don't always agree. Again, one doesn't "believe" in hard evidence; one sees and accepts hard evidence. It is the difference between believing that unicorns, though you have never seen one, and seeing deer in your backyard everyday. Hard evidence is simply there to be accepted; by the time you have hard evidence, you are way past the point of belief. And again, the whole point of faith is believing something without needing evidence.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I can see the deer prints in my vegetable garden every morning and still believe in unicorns. My best friend can tell her daughter that they have a mouse and her daughter can still believe that the scratchings she hears at night are brownies. I can see and accept all the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old (that is the number being thrown around, right?) and still believe that some nebulous, mystical being created it. However, I cannot believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, if I accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old. Likewise, if I believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, I cannot accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old.

Quote

Gem said:

Secondly, taking the Genesis creation story literally, as you put it, highlights one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. There is no straightforward way to take it literally, unless you mean there is only one obvious interpretation of the text.

Revisionist material. As I have repeated many times for the large part of human history, the Church and the "Bible-thumpers" have religiously argued that it was true, and it has to be taken literally. Only for the recent 2-300 years has the Churches claimed otherwise. While it is good to see Religion has progressed, but to me it only shows the fallacies of Religion.

Again, what is wrong with revisionist religious beliefs? And what prevents you from thinking that the Genesis story might be symbolic? There are plenty of other reasons to reject a belief in God without needing Genesis to be a literal story.

Quote

Gem said:

On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

Ah this is the most interesting argument. This is the difference between Science and Faith methinks. It's not the interpretation, its that Faith can believe in so many possibilities based on so little fact. While for Science it's vice versa. The emphatic word here is possibilities. To me, there is no black and white line, there is just possibilities and probabilities to govern what I believe in. And such it is that there is no evidence to provide support Faith.

Honestly, it's not an interesting argument. It's a weak argument, since it is glaringly open to the old, "If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?" But I addressed why I dislike it as a fallback argument in my earlier post.

You could look at scientific possibilities the opposite way, as well. You can believe anything until it's proven wrong. It's much less limiting than never believing in anything and only accepting that which has been proven. Think where we would be if our scientific community thought that way. Heh, although I remember saying that to my boyfriend once and practically hearing him think, "Yeah, but that's wrong." Oh, skeptics.

Quote

Epiph said:

However, there are Christians who take Genesis, and the Bible as a whole, literally, to the letter. That attitude can't coexist with science as we currently understand it (the beauty of science is that, with enough rigorous scientific examination, it will change it's collective mind). The body of current scientific knowledge disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I think I'm in love.

That was easy...

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

And yet, there are many people who do take the bible literally. My grandmother is one of them. I said specifically that science and religion can happily coexist--the whole point of faith is to believe something without proof. So, of course, science and religion can coexist. I said only that science, as we currently understand it, cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. Hell, I didn't even say that any about the bible as a whole.

Well, of course I can't speak for anyone else but myself.

Correction: You say that science, as you understand it, cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the bible.
Now, what is this literal interpretation you speak of?

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Further, if you are going ask for understanding and suspension of disbelief from people, you should a) assume you are getting it and do the same for the people you are talking to. There is no point in the exchange of information if neither side is open to being convinced of anything. Assumption is a two-way street.

I did the mistake of assuming I was getting that last time around. I am not making that mistake twice. Question: are you open to convinced of anything? Really, I'm here to share my opinions and enjoy an intellectual connection between people that don't have to think the same. I don't need you to be convinced of anything, I just want you to be able to bend your intellect so you can see how I think. As much as you can. As for me seeing what you see, I already do. I perfectly understand why and how you would say that science and the bible is two different things pertaining the genesis story.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but from your point of view bible believers take everything literally because we believe everything in the bible to be true. But what does literally mean, really? Actually believing in the bible opens up a whole new level of intellectual thinking around it - because so much about for instance the Genesis story is very vague. On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

You are wrong. You are being defensive and putting words in my mouth. I grew up in a very very very spiritual household, in a very very very spiritual community, full of people who are constantly trying to prove the benefits of their spiritual practice with science. While I, personally, have veered from that perspective, I understand all the shades of gray that come with faith. I understand the comforting allure of belief. Most of all, I totally respect it. In fact, I envy people with a firm sense of faith, because of the comfort it provides.

If I wrongly assumed anything, except my apologies. But still, what is this literal interpretation you speak of?

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

However, there are Christians who take Genesis, and the Bible as a whole, literally, to the letter. That attitude can't coexist with science as we currently understand it (the beauty of science is that, with enough rigorous scientific examination, it will change it's collective mind). The body of current scientific knowledge disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Again, what does literally mean?

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

It is incredibly easy to look at the Genesis story as symbolic. A rigorous scientific explanation of the creation of the world, given to man by God, at the time that the Bible was written down would have sounded ridiculous to people. So even assuming that the Bible is the divine word given to man by God, one can justify the language of the Bible as it stands.

Well, yes, that is part of my point. But does that mean it opposes science? Imo it doesn't. It opposes certain conclusions drawn from science, but that is another story altogether.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Personally, I find the idea that God, while capable of anything and everything, would randomly jerk around with the universe distasteful. If God is going to set down rules for the behavior of his worshippers, wouldn't he, likewise, set down rules for the behavior of the universe he created? And once those rules were set down, why wouldn't he let the universe abide by them? There is enough room for symbolic interpretation of Genesis, once you admit you are open to that, without needing to bring the omnipotence of God into the discussion.

You have to elaborate on that, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

When something might seem obvious to you, we instead think: hey how does God think about that? what did He do? You can see how that changes how we look at the text - suddenly there's tons of more layers to work with.

Can you elaborate?

I could, but it's not part of this discussion, imo. You simply have to trust me on it.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

To us it's more of a process of getting to know God and then interpret the bible through that. We also get to know God through the bible - it's its purpose.

I can see that being the purpose of the New Testament, but the Old Testament has always seemed to me to be written as a religious manual: Here is how God wants you to act.

I don't agree with you. To me both the old and the new testament points to the mercy and glory of God, both points to Christ.

Summary: It's the conclusions drawn from science that can sometimes oppose the bible - i.e. evolution etc. But science in itself can only oppose the bible if it proves the bible is wrong, but it can't and won't, ergo it doesn't oppose the bible.

Either the bible is too vague or science is to vague. Admittedly I can't generalize like that - we'd need specifics to get anywhere with this, and admittedly I am not nearly enough educated on the details to 'battle' with you. But, this is how I see this.

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Gem, what exactly is "the propaganda" being pushed, just for clarity's sake? I think you're saying that Humanist have claimed science as their own, and pushed some sort of agenda to get people to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and that this agenda has been successful. Further, I think you're saying that science should be a religious tool, rather than a belief system in its own right. Am I right? Please correct me otherwise.

I am not saying science should be a religious tool. I am saying that science is being used as a tool for certain anti-religious ideologies. If you call it humanistic or otherwise doesn't matter to me. What I mean is that certain anti-religious ideologies claim science to be their own, and anyone that try to make science neutral from any ideologies is called non-scientific. Simply that.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Quote

Gem said:

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed.

False, it is often the other way around. As I said before Fact will always clash with Faith. You cannot believe in hard evidence and then expect to believe in something of "faith" without seeing anything that can be proven from it. It contradicts your personal being. It is those with the perspective to value both Fact and Faith that will never oppose Science and Religion, and yes there are many out there like that.

I totally disagree. Fact and faith do not necessarily clash, they just don't always agree. Again, one doesn't "believe" in hard evidence; one sees and accepts hard evidence. It is the difference between believing that unicorns, though you have never seen one, and seeing deer in your backyard everyday. Hard evidence is simply there to be accepted; by the time you have hard evidence, you are way past the point of belief. And again, the whole point of faith is believing something without needing evidence.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I can see the deer prints in my vegetable garden every morning and still believe in unicorns. My best friend can tell her daughter that they have a mouse and her daughter can still believe that the scratchings she hears at night are brownies. I can see and accept all the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old (that is the number being thrown around, right?) and still believe that some nebulous, mystical being created it.

This is very much like what I've been trying to explain!

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

However, I cannot believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, if I accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old. Likewise, if I believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, I cannot accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old.

Why not? Genesis is really vague on the point when earth was created. The how even more so. The old earth thingy I never had any problem with fitting into the Genesis story.

[Dreamz]

frookenhauer, on Nov 26 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

The chapters I've read so far are testament to this point, he is an angry, wrathful, biased and has seriously got it in for the Egyptians...

You're getting closer to who God is and how he has revealed himself in the Bible. It's not that God has it in for the Egyptians specifically, he has it in for everybody except his chosen people, the Hebrews. The Fall of Adam ensured the damnation of the entire human race. When God said, 'the day you eat of the tree you shall surely die" has nothing to do with physical death, but with eternal death. But, of course, God also gives the promise of the saviour. Everything that follows, up to the birth and death of Jesus, is the story of God's redemption plan through his people, the Hebrews.

As far as God being biased, yes he is. But you have to switch the perspective around. As stated earlier, the whole human race is deserved of God's wrath through the fall. That being said, it wasn't unfair for God to punish the world as he chooses, as nobody believed in him as the one true God anyways. What's unfair is him choosing Abraham and his descendants as his chosen people, especially when you see in the history of the Israelites how often they fail to put their trust in God.

(As an aside, yeah, I'm new here. As far as my own beliefs I was raised in the Calvinist Reformed tradition, heavy in theology and dogma. I've studied theology pretty extensively, probably too much as it led to me leaving the church for a while. I'm kind of in between right now, but I'm slowly being drawn back in )

[Gem Windcaster]

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Morning all,

Gem said:

People keep saying this, and I honestly don't understand why. I mean, I can see why some scientific people have a need to set religion and science against each other, because to them (you) they are different concepts, set apart.

Science is based on Fact; Religion is based on Faith. That is the fundamental difference.
The same could be said about religious people, in fact in the course of human history is has been really the religious people who controlled thought and knowledge to keep Science in the dark. It's only really in the last 100 to 200 years has science really flourished with anyone controlling it. In the modern times however, the point is moot.

You point being? I love science, and I believe in God. They don't clash in my world view.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

But with a different perspective and another philosophical view, there is no conflict between science and religion. It's one of the things I've been trying to explain in threads here, but noone seem to be able to grasp how I (and others) see this.

I see it, people would believe that religion is more based on faith, and that you can have faith in a subject but understand the fact of others. You believe Science to be just another perspective of thinking. I agree with your line of thinking to a limit. Afterall, there are dozens of religions, each with pacts and sides in itself all on the different ways of interpreting a book and other "resources". The same goes for scientists, sometimes pieces of evidence will contradict itself so people will align themselves to the side that that has the most evidence. But it doesn't mean the others side is necessarily wrong. It just means further reasearch is needed. Now forgive if I think how you can further interpret faith and the Bible in particular to find more fact to disclaim the usual, accepted science. I suppose you have to look for more Dead Sea Scrolls and the such, but that is off the point. Scientists believe that it is the only perspective of thinking as it is based on fact, not "faith". If you can show archaelogical, geographical etc evidence there is a Big man up there, then I'm sure scientists would accommodate.

But I don't need to prove my faith - that is the whole point. Science can't prove God doesn't exist, even less prove what or who he is, how he created heaven and earth, or when he did it. Science and my faith doens't clash. Simple as that.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

But with a different perspective and another philosophical view, there is no conflict between science and religion. It's one of the things I've been trying to explain in threads here, but noone seem to be able to grasp how I (and others) see this.

There is. I have yet to see a solid argument that says Science and Religion are not fundamentally different.

I have yet to see a solid argument that they cannot coexist.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

Science in itself has never posed a problem for bible believers. What has posed a problem is the humanists (anti religion) claiming science as their own invention. It is not. It is just the propaganda the humanists aggressively, and successfully, have made people swallow (imo). True Science is a tool, not an ideology.

More revisionist material. As I said previously, from the coming of Christ (and before) up to the 1600s, it has been religious people who reviled science. If you note it, the writtings of Copernicus and Darwin stired up so many disbelief is because it was directly opposed to the Church's teachings. The only "science" really not have been prosecuted was Chemistry because the Church believed it was along the line of "Since God made those materials anyway...". Humanists are not scientists I have to agree with you there, but I astonishingly see that you have made arguments for one side. Please go and check out all the Creationists out there, they are the ones with money who spew out propaganda to teach non-factual, and non-evidence based thinking to our children.
The word "Ideology" is false, the word should be changed to "Faith".

I am not a creationist, and I don't condone them either, and I don't think they should try to claim science as their own as they try to do. And they are both ideologies - one that try to claim science, and another that try to claim both faith and science. Faith and ideology are two different concepts, and ideology is the right one from where I stand.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

Well my point was that science and religion never stand opposed, unless you have a certain perspective. He has that perspective, I gather, so to him they do stand opposed.

False, it is often the other way around. As I said before Fact will always clash with Faith. You cannot believe in hard evidence and then expect to believe in something of "faith" without seeing anything that can be proven from it. It contradicts your personal being. It is those with the perspective to value both Fact and Faith that will never oppose Science and Religion, and yes there are many out there like that.

Fact have yet to clash with my faith. That certain other interpretations (read other faiths) clash with my faith is another story. Also, it's completely logical, to your horror.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

Secondly, taking the Genesis creation story literally, as you put it, highlights one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. There is no straightforward way to take it literally, unless you mean there is only one obvious interpretation of the text.

Revisionist material. As I have repeated many times for the large part of human history, the Church and the "Bible-thumpers" have religiously argued that it was true, and it has to be taken literally. Only for the recent 2-300 years has the Churches claimed otherwise. While it is good to see Religion has progressed, but to me it only shows the fallacies of Religion.

I have nothing to do with those people. The scientific community fails a lot too, because it's made up of humans, as are churches and such. This has nothing to do with me.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 26 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Gem said:

On top of that, we believe God is capable of anything and everything, which makes the interpretation of how something happened and in which order a row of endless possibilities.

Ah this is the most interesting argument. This is the difference between Science and Faith methinks. It's not the interpretation, its that Faith can believe in so many possibilities based on so little fact. While for Science it's vice versa. The emphatic word here is possibilities. To me, there is no black and white line, there is just possibilities and probabilities to govern what I believe in. And such it is that there is no evidence to provide support Faith.

Faith doesn't need any fact. At. All. Science is what I experience and measure with my senses and conclude with my mind. Faith is recognizing that my senses and my mind cannot experience everything out there and that I cannot understand everything.

[Epiph]

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

And yet, there are many people who do take the bible literally. My grandmother is one of them. I said specifically that science and religion can happily coexist--the whole point of faith is to believe something without proof. So, of course, science and religion can coexist. I said only that science, as we currently understand it, cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. Hell, I didn't even say that any about the bible as a whole.

Well, of course I can't speak for anyone else but myself.

Correction: You say that science, as you understand it, cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the bible.
Now, what is this literal interpretation you speak of?

Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

Science, as I understand its laws, principles, and generally accepted as proven by time theories cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Further, if you are going ask for understanding and suspension of disbelief from people, you should a) assume you are getting it and do the same for the people you are talking to. There is no point in the exchange of information if neither side is open to being convinced of anything. Assumption is a two-way street.

I did the mistake of assuming I was getting that last time around. I am not making that mistake twice. Question: are you open to convinced of anything? Really, I'm here to share my opinions and enjoy an intellectual connection between people that don't have to think the same. I don't need you to be convinced of anything, I just want you to be able to bend your intellect so you can see how I think. As much as you can. As for me seeing what you see, I already do. I perfectly understand why and how you would say that science and the bible is two different things pertaining the genesis story.

I will always be swayed by a good argument, which is why I now count myself among the ranks of the atheists, agnostics, and non-believers of the world; Dawkins makes a good case. In any case, I have never been Christian, though I used to be deist, and I still greatly admire the faith and belief of religious people. Socrates seems to have been opposed to religious thought, while Plato thought that religion was useful in that it gave a populace a reason for morality, and Marx called it the opiate of the masses; and that's pretty much where I stand on religion. I only wish it were an opiate that worked for me.

Quote

If I wrongly assumed anything, except my apologies. But still, what is this literal interpretation you speak of?

See above.

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

It is incredibly easy to look at the Genesis story as symbolic. A rigorous scientific explanation of the creation of the world, given to man by God, at the time that the Bible was written down would have sounded ridiculous to people. So even assuming that the Bible is the divine word given to man by God, one can justify the language of the Bible as it stands.

Well, yes, that is part of my point. But does that mean it opposes science? Imo it doesn't. It opposes certain conclusions drawn from science, but that is another story altogether.

But many of those conclusions make up the body of scientific knownledge currently held to be true, which is what I think most of us mean when we say "science." Inaccurate terminology. I'll try to be more precise.

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Personally, I find the idea that God, while capable of anything and everything, would randomly jerk around with the universe distasteful. If God is going to set down rules for the behavior of his worshippers, wouldn't he, likewise, set down rules for the behavior of the universe he created? And once those rules were set down, why wouldn't he let the universe abide by them? There is enough room for symbolic interpretation of Genesis, once you admit you are open to that, without needing to bring the omnipotence of God into the discussion.

You have to elaborate on that, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis (The world was created in 7 days, in a specific order, and Eve was created from Adam's rib, and they were in a magical garden that they got kicked out of when they ate something they weren't supposed to, and all the masses of humanity are descended from that union a few thousand years ago), and then you say "That's true, but it is also true the universe is 15 billion years old, and homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, and evolved from apes, because God is omnipotent and can make that happen," well, I find that a weak argument. If God went to the trouble of laying out specific universal laws of physics and biology, why would he bother to just not use them?

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

When something might seem obvious to you, we instead think: hey how does God think about that? what did He do? You can see how that changes how we look at the text - suddenly there's tons of more layers to work with.

Can you elaborate?

I could, but it's not part of this discussion, imo. You simply have to trust me on it.

If a part of your argument hinges on that aspect of your worldview, I think it's plenty relevant. If its personal, and you just don't want to share, that's fine.

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

To us it's more of a process of getting to know God and then interpret the bible through that. We also get to know God through the bible - it's its purpose.

I can see that being the purpose of the New Testament, but the Old Testament has always seemed to me to be written as a religious manual: Here is how God wants you to act.

I don't agree with you. To me both the old and the new testament points to the mercy and glory of God, both points to Christ.

I'm interested in how you see the mercy of God in the Old Testament...I suppose he does generally save his people after brutally testing them...

Quote

Summary: It's the conclusions drawn from science that can sometimes oppose the bible - i.e. evolution etc. But science in itself can only oppose the bible if it proves the bible is wrong, but it can't and won't, ergo it doesn't oppose the bible.

Either the bible is too vague or science is to vague. Admittedly I can't generalize like that - we'd need specifics to get anywhere with this, and admittedly I am not nearly enough educated on the details to 'battle' with you. But, this is how I see this.

But when the conclusions drawn from science that oppose the Bible, with evolution being the obvious example, are generally held by the entire scientific community as true, then it really just seems like blindness, or discarding evidence you don't like, as if I were to see the deer prints and the deer scat in my garden and decide that it was evidence that unicorns were real. Just like my best friend's daughter decided, against the evidence of the mouse in the house, that it was, instead a brownie. It is the difference between fact and faith. I have no problem with faith, but there are just sometimes when they clash.

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Gem, what exactly is "the propaganda" being pushed, just for clarity's sake? I think you're saying that Humanist have claimed science as their own, and pushed some sort of agenda to get people to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and that this agenda has been successful. Further, I think you're saying that science should be a religious tool, rather than a belief system in its own right. Am I right? Please correct me otherwise.

I am not saying science should be a religious tool. I am saying that science is being used as a tool for certain anti-religious ideologies. If you call it humanistic or otherwise doesn't matter to me. What I mean is that certain anti-religious ideologies claim science to be their own, and anyone that try to make science neutral from any ideologies is called non-scientific. Simply that.

Well, yes. Religion uses faith as a tool to turn people to God, and atheists/agnostics/non-theists use science to point to the lack of evidence that there is a God. Just as a missionary feels he or she is doing good by helping people find God, atheists/agnostics/non-theists see all the harm that has been perpetrated in the name of religion and think they are doing good by logically eliminating the possibility of God's existence. So, of course anti-religious ideologies use science to make their point: it's all they have or need (which is, in part, their point).

Science, as a whole, is separate from any ideology...because science is simply the study of the laws and principles of the physical world. The only way science is tied to religion is in the belief that God created it and has laid out rules for how to interact with it.

My point is that you can't blame "anti-religious" ideologies for having scientific dogma.

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

However, I cannot believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, if I accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old. Likewise, if I believe in the story of Genesis, taken literally, I cannot accept the evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old.

Why not? Genesis is really vague on the point when earth was created. The how even more so. The old earth thingy I never had any problem with fitting into the Genesis story.

The key word that you keep missing is "literal," meaning "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical." A revisionist view of Genesis, taking it as symbolic or however you want to interpret it, can jive quite well with the generally accepted scientific creation story, but a literal view of Genesis, where each day mentioned is a 24 hour solar cycle, and the date of creation is determined using the family trees laid out in Genesis cannot coexist with the generally accepted scientific creation story.

Edit:
Added a response to an earlier post.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 26 November 2008 - 09:57 PM

[frookenhauer]

Hey Epiph, Gem has a tendency to change her post quite often after it is written so you have to keep on your toes

And now we come to chapter 16, Lets hope its a good one:

Quote

1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bore him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abram: 'Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall be builded up through her.' And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram: 'My wrong be upon thee: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.' 6 But Abram said unto Sarai: 'Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes.' And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face. 7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8 And he said: 'Hagar, Sarai's handmaid, whence camest thou? and whither goest thou?' And she said: 'I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.' 9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.' 10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.' 13 And she called the name of the LORD that spoke unto her, Thou art a God of seeing; for she said: 'Have I even here seen Him that seeth Me?' 14 Wherefore the well was called 'Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered. 15 And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram. {S}

Its the Handmaids tale! So that's where Margaret Atwood got the idea from. It seems that Abram is one of lifes truly lucky people. He's got god on his side and gets away with selling his wife for cattle and asses and gets her back via a few plagues and now...Sarai is more than willing for him to shack up with her Egyptian handmaid. Hagar is an interesting name too and evokes the image of a hulking barbarian with axes in each hand...I take it Hagar is one of the spoils of the issue with the Egyptians. Interesting God promises him children and rather than make Sarai un-barren he lets his dear friend Abram break Sara. Anyway the kind hearted man known as Abram learning of the problems between the two women lets his wife have dominion over his pregnant concubine, and Sarai being of such nobility lays into Hagar the barbarian...Every day in every way Abram sinks lower and lower.

Anyway she goes trudging off into the wilds and is found by an angel who knows who she is, which is interesting, how much are angels allowed to know? what are their powers? Hmm...Anyway the Angel promises her that her son will be a complete ass who will raise his hands to every one, now that's what I call motivation and he added that her seed will be a multitude, which is a recurring theme...And is similar to what god promises and if so the angels must be an extension of gods will, but how does the devil factor into this...As yet there has been no mention of him. And she goes back and delivers Ishmael into the hands of his father when The geezer is 86 years old, they don't make em like they used to