On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:12:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again,
>> with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say
>> with a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way
>> described in Genesis,
> 
> Of course they didn't. There aren't any Ice Giants mentioned at all.

:-)

> Why does the argument always seem to be "why do you think the Bible is
> wrong", instead of "why do you think Thor isn't in charge of thunder?"

You know, that's a good question.  I've occasionally wondered that myself 
in debates with my religous friends.  Maybe it's because today the common 
context isn't a polytheistic context, but the monotheistic context of the 
varieties of Christianity (and the related religions).

Possibly because we know today that God isn't in charge of thunder, but 
that it's caused by the rapid expansion of air caused when charged 
particles move to the ground or another cloud?

As I said later, religion is often used to explain the inexplicable.  
Some people need/want that sort of comfort in their lives - that 
everything has an explanation.  The "mysteries of life" today don't 
revolve around how the sun crosses the sky or where thunder comes from, 
but focus more on "what's it all about?" types of questions.

>>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>>> always won wars of oppression against them.
>> 
>> I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and
>> also happened to have identical life experiences.
> 
> Or that, maybe, God actually told them the same thing. By "believed the
> same things", I mean "believed the same things about their religion".
> Not "agreed in every way that blue is the prettiest color."

Even still, I don't believe that even two people who receive the same 
message will interpret it the same way.  The telephone game kinda proves 
that to an extent.

In other words, you not only would have to have the same message 
delivered, but you'd have to have identical interpretations.  Given how 
many ways people interpret something that many consider to be as 
important as the Bible, I think that's unlikely.  Within some religions 
(I'm thinking Judaism), members are encouraged to explore their own 
personal interpretation (so I understand).

> I.e., that after 500 years, you don't have 3000 warring sects. No
> buildings with statues of one group of Christians standing triumphantly
> on the heads of other Christians that just didn't follow the same
> humans.

Why does it have to be Christians, though?  How's about Buddhism?

>>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
>> 
>> I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books
>> were in fact essentially the same.
> 
> Well, if they were word-for-word identical, I think that would count.
> I'd even go with the creation in 7 days in the same order (yes, I know),
> the flood, and a few other bits like that.

Again, though, there would be interpretive questions.  Word for word in 
what language, for example?  Even today, there are serious questions 
about the translation of the books from one language to another - for 
example, for a long time, the interpretation of the word defining the 
"pain of childbirth" that was the punishment for Eve's original sin was 
translated as meaning "pain" - as in "this should be painful as a 
reminder of the original sin".  Some scholars have determined that the 
word's translation was incorrect, and that it really should have 
translated to "work" rather than "pain".

There is apparently some debate about this still, but just the idea that 
we can't come to a common understanding of what the words even mean in 
the Bible makes this increasingly unlikely, because in order to do "word 
for word identical" or even "getting events in the same order" we have to 
have a common definition to start from on Earth, and we don't even have 
that.

> The real kicker is that if *humans* came from some other world, you have
> a lot of explaining how evolution made that happen to do.

Absolutely.

> (See the "Giant's Star" novels.)

Will have to look them up.

>>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
>> 
>> There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The
>> Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North
>> America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of
>> Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the
>> LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would
>> constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?
> 
> Rapture? People *actually* coming up out of graves to greet him? Demons
> with giant scales weighing you and dragging you off to pits of hell in
> shackles, as depicted on churches all over europe?

There again, you defined it as a return, not the Rapture, armageddon, or 
whatever word fits.  "Return to earth" is exactly what the Mormons 
believe happened.  So again, it's a question of definition and details.

> How about "Jesus actually returning to actual Earth after the invention
> of the television camera"?

Didn't Jim Jones claim that he was Jesus?  How would one prove that 
someone claiming to be Jesus was in fact Jesus?

>>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer,
>>> and spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs
>>> shortly after.
>> 
>> That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good
>> people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we
>> are not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.
> 
> Yeah. "You're too stupid to understand. But *we* understand why you're
> too stupid to understand. *We* understand God well enough to know that
> His grand plan requires suffering now."

I don't think it's "We understand" but "we have faith that there's a 
reason for it".  There's a big difference there.

> Of course, Jesus disagrees, and says you shouldn't go to doctors, but
> just trust in God, and all your medical problems will disappear. Funny
> how that doesn't happen either.

Some people believe that, yes.  And I think that's nuts, and in 
situations where someone puts their child's health at risk for that 
belief, that's when society needs to step in.  It's one thing for an 
adult to make that decision for themselves; quite another IMO for them to 
decide that about someone else.  Falls under my "as far as my nose" (or 
perhaps "others' noses" is a better analogy) rule for letting people 
believe what they like.

>>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
>>> defects.
>> 
>> How many people make up a religion?
> 
> Now you're arguing details. Obviously, it has to be a large enough
> population to make such a thing statistically unlikely.

Well, yes and no.  But the situation set up is one that requires the 
question be asked, because religion is defined in so many different ways 
to different people.  It need not be organised, 

I use the definition "Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence 
for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or 
practice of rites or observances implying this." (OED, 2e, definition 3a) 
when discussing religion.  Knowing people who follow Wiccan beliefs, some 
of those religious rites or observances are done in a solitary fashion, 
and I don't think I've ever met two who defined their beliefs in the same 
way.  But they certainly can be very religious people, too.

>> I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is
>> arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough
>> that you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter
>> was made.
> 
> See above.

Well, the devil *is* in the details, no? ;-)

>>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So,
>>> move a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week,
>>> and I'll believe faith can move mountains.
>> 
>> Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but
>> based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but
>> was being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".
> 
> Except this story was in response to people being amazed that Jesus
> could kill an innocent tree just by cursing it. They said "Wow, how can
> we get that power?"  And he said basically "Believe in me."
> 
> Sure, it could be figurative, and an allegory. And as I've said numerous
> times, I have no trouble with people who treat the bible as fictional
> allegories and cherry-pick the bits they want, as long as they don't
> expect me to agree with them.

Well, and you and I certainly agree on this point.  Discussion with 
someone who firmly believes the JWs have the right interpretation is 
always interesting, because in my experience, that sort of cherry picking 
is what they tend to do, but then when you debate in kind, they say 
"well, you're taking that out of context".  It does make for an 
entertaining (and occasionally high-spirited discussion).

>>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>>> disaster or even lightning.
>> 
>> There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already
>> happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church
>> (for that matter).
> 
> Again, it has to be big enough to be statistically unlikely. If you're
> going to say *this* church is the only church for its entire religion,
> then sure, that can happen.

See, that's the problem with it.  Big enough to be statistically unlikely 
becomes difficult to quantify consistently.  10 churches?  20?  a 
hundred?  What constitutes a disaster?  There's a lot of wiggle room 
there for "that doesn't count".

> I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't
> provided enough details.

I do know what you're getting at - and my list actually would be very 
similar.  I just know, though, that the response from someone who is 
truly religious is going to poke those kinds of holes in the required 
proof.

My friend Al (the JW that I have debated with) often liked to counter 
with a pointer to the book The Invisible Watchmaker, and then would say 
"does not a watch imply a watchmaker"?  That was fairly pointless to 
debate, because he sees order in the world where I see chaos.

We're not so different in points of view, Darren - I hope you do see 
that.  I perhaps don't go as far as describing myself as atheistic 
(probably closer to agnostic, but even that's not entirely accurate, 
because agnosticism holds that there are things that are unknowable, and 
I don't think that's the case - I think it takes time to learn them, 
sometimes more than a lifetime, but that knowledge grows with each 
passing generation; this is easily provable to be the case), but I do 
have a healthy dose of skepticism, don't practice a mainstream religion 
of any sort these days, I know there are things that I don't know, and I 
don't feel a need to explain them away with some sort of mystical "god".

I have an interest in a variety of points of view, and try to understand 
what I can from them, even though I probably won't agree with them.

I hope this has been an enjoyable conversation for you, it has been so 
for me.  This sort of discussion gets me thinking and analyzing about 
what I think and believe, and I enjoy that immensely for some reason.

Jim

Post a reply to this message