Theologians -- Religion's "Spinmeisters"

[_keithb]

Yeah, I noted your anemic "Cantorian" argument; it goes nowhere.

I looked back at the thread. You didn't post, at least under your current handle. If you would like to point out which handle you were posting under at the time, perhaps I could respond to you properly.

In any case, I think that my original argument in that thread stands. Knowledge and God are both well defined, and if you try to define a set that contains all of the knowledge God has, then I can instantly define a set of knowledge larger than the first. Thus, it is impossible to define an upper set of knowledge for an omnipotent God to have.

Your retort on the thread about positivism isn't exactly helpful, since I haven't specified whether the knowledge in that set is "provable" or "non-provable" (and there is indeed no way to tell). Whether it's in either group, define an upper set, I will show you a larger one. It's as simple as that.

I don't take people seriously who refer to Spaghetti Monsters; it is like arguing with someone who is in or has just finished high school.

The very point of that statement is that you're not supposed to respect someone who believes in that, any more than you're supposed to respect someone who believes in the Flying Invisible Man in The Sky. Both beliefs are sophomoric; both should be dismissed by sophisticated people.

With due diligence, you might be able to disprove such a hypothesis.

True. When you do have the evidence of the small teapot, or God for that matter, come back and we'll talk. Until then, I reserve the right to claim that neither are there. Prove me wrong.

Which is not the same as claiming all scientific evidence concurs against the existence of some thing.

I'll defer to Buffalo on this one. To think of how silly this argument really is, just apply it to a homeopathic remedy instead of God.

Are you parroting the noxious mediocrity Victor Stenger here?

Haven't read him, sorry.

By the way, you labeling someone as "noxious" doesn't make it so. It seems rather like the use of a logical fallacy called "name calling" -- trying to discredit and argument by giving it a negative label.

[quote='keithb']Specifically, with regards to the Christian God (I am assuming here that you are Christian), we have the stories of Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel, the Exodus, Herod killing all newborn children, etc. that have been falsified. So, while I can't say for certain that Christ isn't God, the secondary predictions that come as a result of that statement have all been falsified, to my knowledge. [/quote]

The latter two have not been falsified. As for the former three, they may or may not have been falsified, depending on how one views them, I suppose.

Oh really?

Because I am afraid that if I start answering this statement that the goalposts are going to get moved on me, I'll let you first establish them so that we can have an intelligent discussion about it. According to your world view, in what ways have these stories NOT been falsified (and are thus true)? To me, comparing a literal reading of these stories to modern science shows the utter absurdity of these stories, but I am sure that you and other believers have managed to retell them in a way to avoid either a direct comparison or a literal reading. So, define your worldview here, and we'll discuss it.

[_keithb]

The Bible is not a scientific manual. Never has been. Those who read it as such do so outside of Judeo-Christian tradition and context.

The Pentateuch, in particular, contains more of the mythology of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Not myth, as in just made up and you should believe it just because. But myth, defined as truth being conveyed by an oral-story tradition. Many times the truth being conveyed is God's Mercy and Justice.

For example, I don't know of any mainline, non-Fundamental Evangelical Christian who believes Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, or that the earth was literally covered entirely in water. Arguments that are based on an idea that we do, don't really show a working knowledge of Christian belief.

Peace

madeleine,

Respectfully, I differ with your opinion here as well. I think the Bible DOES say a lot about things that are, in essence, areas that overlap with scientific theory, or at least can be investigated scientifically. Certainly the idea of whether or not a global flood occured ~4000 years ago can be empirically tested and found to be false. Similarly, ideas about whether humans were instantaneously created from mud or evolved from a lower species can also be tested.

I really think that, when religious people say this, it is the same sort of cognitive disconnect that they get mad at apologists of the Mormon faith for on this message board. If you can rationalize away the flood of Noah, why can't you rationalize away the Book of Abraham being an incorrect translation?

So many things in life are much simpler if you just accept that religion is man made.

[_madeleine]

I don't read the story of Noah and the flood literally. The Catholic Church, who I believe is the authority for interpreting scripture, does not teach that it is literal.

We do read, and teach, that there are different senses of scripture. Myth being one. It isn't cognitive dissonance. It is understanding scripture properly. I've said before, that there are three groups of people (that I am aware of) that interpret Noah and the flood literally. Fundamental Evangelicals, Mormons and atheists. Both Fundamental Evangelicalism and Mormonism arose in the 19th century, atheism of course has been around forever, and the arguments presented by atheists are not new. Either way, it isn't like people haven't been studying scripture for thousands of years and haven't been able to think properly, and with reason. Such an idea is not reasonable, at all.

Faith and reason work together. Each informs the other. That has been and always will be the position of the Catholic Church.

Theology, for a Catholic, is defined as faith seeking understanding. This is done using reason, not throwing reason out the window.

If you wanted to seriously present to a Catholic (or mainstream Christian) theologian your position on the flood being disproven empirically, you would have to first present why a reading of the story of the flood as literally as you are, is valid. I see no valid reason to read this story literally. The important truth conveyed is God's interactions with Creation...us, and what is it we should understand about this truth.

[_keithb]

I don't read the story of Noah and the flood literally. The Catholic Church, who I believe is the authority for interpreting scripture, does not teach that it is literal.

We do read, and teach, that there are different senses of scripture. Myth being one. It isn't cognitive dissonance. It is understanding scripture properly. I've said before, that there are three groups of people (that I am aware of) that interpret Noah and the flood literally. Fundamental Evangelicals, Mormons and atheists. Both Fundamental Evangelicalism and Mormonism arose in the 19th century, atheism of course has been around forever, and the arguments presented by atheists are not new. Either way, it isn't like people haven't been studying scripture for thousands of years and haven't been able to think properly, and with reason. Such an idea is not reasonable, at all.

Faith and reason work together. Each informs the other. That has been and always will be the position of the Catholic Church.

Theology, for a Catholic, is defined as faith seeking understanding. This is done using reason, not throwing reason out the window.

If you wanted to seriously present to a Catholic (or mainstream Christian) theologian your position on the flood being disproven empirically, you would have to first present why a reading of the story of the flood as literally as you are, is valid. I see no valid reason to read this story literally. The important truth conveyed is God's interactions with Creation...us, and what is it we should understand about this truth.

To me, this is a bit of cherry picking on the part of religious believers. Why is it then that I should accept the flood of Noah as metaphorical and the resurrection of Jesus as literal? Or, is it all metaphorical (in which case I guess we're both athiests :) )?

Also, just from a practical standpoint, I find this worldview perplexing just on its own merits. Honestly, I'm not sure where it comes from. Nothing in the text indicates that it is to be taken metaphorically. God doesn't ever say, "Well, this is how I created the world . . . except I didn't, I used evolution and the laws of Physics instead." Also, historically, there is no precedence for it. A hundred or so years ago, you would have been labeled a heretic and excommunicated for thinking the flood of Noah was a metaphor. Anything short of a literal reading of the text is, at least to me, an attempt to reconcile two stories that are inherently irreconcilable -- even if the Pope tells you otherwise.

By the way, you are talking about the Roman Catholic pope here -- not the Coptic pope? Correct?

[_Milesius]

Yeah, I noted your anemic "Cantorian" argument; it goes nowhere.

I looked back at the thread. You didn't post, at least under your current handle. If you would like to point out which handle you were posting under at the time, perhaps I could respond to you properly.

I did not claim I posted to it but that I noted it. (Although, I have since posted to it.)

In any case, I think that my original argument in that thread stands. Knowledge and God are both well defined, and if you try to define a set that contains all of the knowledge God has, then I can instantly define a set of knowledge larger than the first. Thus, it is impossible to define an upper set of knowledge for an omnipotent God to have.

Yes, and you are wrong.

Your retort on the thread about positivism isn't exactly helpful, since I haven't specified whether the knowledge in that set is "provable" or "non-provable" (and there is indeed no way to tell). Whether it's in either group, define an upper set, I will show you a larger one. It's as simple as that.

I don't recall posting about positivism (at least recently).

I don't take people seriously who refer to Spaghetti Monsters; it is like arguing with someone who is in or has just finished high school.

The very point of that statement is that you're not supposed to respect someone who believes in that, any more than you're supposed to respect someone who believes in the Flying Invisible Man in The Sky. Both beliefs are sophomoric; both should be dismissed by sophisticated people.

1. Neither I nor any Christian I know believes in a "Flying Invisible Man in The Sky."
2. You are not an adequate judge of sophistication.

With due diligence, you might be able to disprove such a hypothesis.

True. When you do have the evidence of the small teapot, or God for that matter, come back and we'll talk. Until then, I reserve the right to claim that neither are there. Prove me wrong.

As for arguments for the existence of God, I recommend the modal ontological arguments of Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Gödel, the argument from contingency, and this argument I borrowed from David Bartholomew.

Which is not the same as claiming all scientific evidence concurs against the existence of some thing.

I'll defer to Buffalo on this one. To think of how silly this argument really is, just apply it to a homeopathic remedy instead of God.

Deferring to someone who knows less than you is not a good strategy.

Are you parroting the noxious mediocrity Victor Stenger here?

Haven't read him, sorry.

By the way, you labeling someone as "noxious" doesn't make it so. It seems rather like the use of a logical fallacy called "name calling" -- trying to discredit and argument by giving it a negative label.

You appear to be making the same mistake that many people make re: insults vs. ad hominem fallacy.

The latter two have not been falsified [i.e., the Exodus and Herod killing "all newborn children"]. As for the former three [i.e., Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel], they may or may not have been falsified, depending on how one views them, I suppose.

Oh really?

Yes really.

Because I am afraid that if I start answering this statement that the goalposts are going to get moved on me, I'll let you first establish them so that we can have an intelligent discussion about it. According to your world view, in what ways have these stories NOT been falsified (and are thus true)? To me, comparing a literal reading of these stories to modern science shows the utter absurdity of these stories, but I am sure that you and other believers have managed to retell them in a way to avoid either a direct comparison or a literal reading. So, define your worldview here, and we'll discuss it.

There is no need. You claim that the Exodus and Herod killing "all newborn children" have been falsified and I dispute that claim. (I may or may not dispute the other claims of falsification.)

[_madeleine]

To me, this is a bit of cherry picking on the part of religious believers. Why is it then that I should accept the flood of Noah as metaphorical and the resurrection of Jesus as literal? Or, is it all metaphorical (in which case I guess we're both athiests :) )?

Also, just from a practical standpoint, I find this worldview perplexing just on its own merits. Honestly, I'm not sure where it comes from. Nothing in the text indicates that it is to be taken metaphorically. God doesn't ever say, "Well, this is how I created the world . . . except I didn't, I used evolution and the laws of Physics instead." Also, historically, there is no precedence for it. A hundred or so years ago, you would have been labeled a heretic and excommunicated for thinking the flood of Noah was a metaphor. Anything short of a literal reading of the text is, at least to me, an attempt to reconcile two stories that are inherently irreconcilable -- even if the Pope tells you otherwise.

By the way, you are talking about the Roman Catholic pope here -- not the Coptic pope? Correct?

Hello, yes, I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. Though, not sure why it matters. :) Coptic Catholics read Scripture in the same manner as Roman Catholics.

Where it comes from is Sacred Tradition. By this I don't mean turkey on Thanksgiving and hot cross buns during Lent.

Sacred Tradition is the "Faith handed on", of which Scripture is a part. If you're around Catholics long enough you will hear someone say, "Scripture came out of Tradition". Liturgy is the most visible aspect of the Faith handed on, but Tradition encompasses everything we believe and do. Catholics (all, east and west) are taught from Scripture and Tradition, not one without the other. (Tradition is also integral to the Jewish faith.)

So it isn't cherry picking, it is the Faith handed on. We don't believe in a literal flood, because it isn't taught as a literal flood, in Scripture or Tradition. Clearly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has always been taught as very literal, in both Scripture and Tradition. It is the very basis of Christian faith.

"And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well." (2 Timothy 2:2)

At the Protestant Reformation, the reformers rejected Sacred Tradition, and are sola scriptura, that is, they claim to rely on Scripture alone, without interpretation from Sacred Tradition. Though, as a Catholic, it is clear to me that everyone interprets scripture. Including atheists. Religions that interpret the flood as literal, do so as a product, or result, of sola scriptura.

Peace.

[Guest]

To give an idea of the Catholic sense of scripture. We read the story of the flood in a literal sense, in that it teaches absolute truths. Those of God's Mercy and Justice. These are not metaphorical.

Figurative, we see a prefiguration of Baptism. A reliance on God. Submission to God as an imperative. What is Sacred to God being maintained in a Sacred vessel (the ark). etc. So while these are figurative, at the same time, they teach literal truths.

There are other senses of scripture, ie, mythical, historical, poetic, etc. Many times scripture contains layers of all, and using Tradition, and the Holy Spirit, a study of Scripture will find a person "unpacking", what is being taught. St. Jerome called this "illumination".

Peace.

[_keithb]

Yes, and you are wrong.

Disproven by fiat, lol.

I don't recall posting about positivism (at least recently).

I thought, at the time, that you were one of the other posters on the thread under a different name.

1. Neither I nor any Christian I know believes in a "Flying Invisible Man in The Sky."

You choose to use nicer words to describe him, but the belief is essentially the same.

2. You are not an adequate judge of sophistication.

I don't think I was trying to judge sophistication here.

With due diligence, you might be able to disprove such a hypothesis.


As for arguments for the existence of God, I recommend the modal ontological arguments of Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Gödel, the argument from contingency, and this argument I borrowed from David Bartholomew.

I'll check them out. I don't expect to find anything new, but one never knows.

Deferring to someone who knows less than you is not a good strategy.

I have no idea whether he knows more or less than me in life. I was only deferring to his response.

You appear to be making the same mistake that many people make re: insults vs. ad hominem fallacy.

Possibly.

Yes really.

From the opening section of Wikipedia on the topic:

[quote='Wikipedia']There is dispute over whether the story is historical at all; modern biographers of Herod mostly deny the event took place.[4] [/quote]

The tradition of the Exodus from Egypt appears to be centered in a much earlier myth.

[quote='Wikipedia']The extant narrative is a product of the late exilic or the post-exilic period (6th to 5th centuries BC), but the core of the narrative is older, being reflected in the 8th to 7th century BC Deuteronomist documents.[1] A minority of scholars assumes that the Iron Age narrative has yet older sources that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th century BC.[2][/quote]

There is no need. You claim that the Exodus and Herod killing "all newborn children" have been falsified and I dispute that claim. (I may or may not dispute the other claims of falsification.)

Dispute away. Just because you disagree doesn't make me wrong.

[_Kishkumen]

Those are not insights, they are judgments passed off by a person who doesn’t have a firm grasp of theology. I don’t expect Dennet to know much about theology, he is a naturalistic philosopher who’s never really needed to be well read in theology, that is, until he decided to opine about it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I owe a lot of Dan in the way of his work, it’s solid philosophy, but his critiques of theology leave much to be desired. You can’t dismiss an entire field of study with the wave of a hand like that, it’s intellectually careless and crass.

Stak, you are the man. Well put.

[_keithb]

Those are not insights, they are judgments passed off by a person who doesn’t have a firm grasp of theology. I don’t expect Dennet to know much about theology, he is a naturalistic philosopher who’s never really needed to be well read in theology, that is, until he decided to opine about it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I owe a lot of Dan in the way of his work, it’s solid philosophy, but his critiques of theology leave much to be desired. You can’t dismiss an entire field of study with the wave of a hand like that, it’s intellectually careless and crass.

Stak, you are the man. Well put.

Out of curiousity (honestly -- simple curiousity) do either of you accept the study of other aspects of the supernatural as legitimate endeavors as well -- for example ufology?