reconciling Biblical and Scientific History

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Haha, I cannot imagine you would think that you could post this without creating heated conversation. Interesting chart, anyway.

“When you translate the Bible with excessive literalism, you demythologize it. The possibility of a convincing reference to the individual's own spiritual experience is lost."
-Joseph Campbell

I anticipated some form of debate, but it wasn't the main intent. I'm so used to rubbing people the wrong way that I thought I might be able to stay above the fray, but I should've known better.

I got a bad look last time I compared the bible stories to aesops fables

Reminds me of when I got in deep shit with a junior high history teacher because the class was discussing ancient Egypt and I noted shared similarities between Christianity and Egyptian mythology. I wasn't trying to start shit or be disrespectful, just noting some similarities.

Doubt, did someone say doubt. I love doubt. Doubt rules all three of my tritype.

Doubt is basis for real belief, understanding, and knowledge. Questioning is so important.

Furthermore, doubting is fun. There is some measure of satisfaction to be had in planting doubt seeds, then watching them sprout truth, only for that truth to wither into more doubt, then the cycle repeats. That's the important thing--to never stop doubting.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Furthermore, doubting is fun. There is some measure of satisfaction to be had in planting doubt seeds, then watching them sprout truth, only for that truth to wither into more doubt, then the cycle repeats. That's the important thing--to never stop doubting.

I stopped planting seeds of doubt back after a incident in high school. A classmate started pushing ultra conservative ideas and literature at me. I skimmed it and told him it was very similar to something I had recently read by Khrushchev. I told him he should read it to get a better understanding of his enemy. He soon became a radical communist and remains one to this day.

I know he was just a lost soul looking for a belief system to grab. However, I have felt bad about his transformation, but ultra conservative, radical communist, religious fanatic, what is the real difference? He was going down some odd path whether I planted a seed or not.

 

[Bknight]

Yes, questioning is extremely important.

Agreed. That's what I like about my Church: they accept that people are likely to question their faith at some point in their life, and consider that doubt essential to strengthening their faith.

I'm Protestant, BTW. Not exactly sure which sub-denomination our church would fall under, though.

PS: I'm also Old-Earth Creationist, but not everyone at my church shares that belief. Young Earth Creationism makes no logical sense, but... well, it's not super-important to God which you believe. Not that some YECs realize that, but what do I care.

 

[ceecee]

Lol...people confuse blind faith with willfully ignorant faith.

Yes but when you have willful ignorance, you have a guaranteed out for any problem and any situation that you have. You give it to <insert deity> and let them handle it. The willfully ignorant person no longer carries any responsibility, no guilt, no shame, no anything for whatever the issue or problem is and whatever the outcome is what the deity decided and it's the right decision 100% of the time. I'm convinced this is one of the attractive features of faith - to be entirely absolved without question.

 

[Poki]

Yes but when you have willful ignorance, you have a guaranteed out for any problem and any situation that you have. You give it to <insert deity> and let them handle it. The willfully ignorant person no longer carries any responsibility, no guilt, no shame, no anything for whatever the issue or problem is and whatever the outcome is what the deity decided and it's the right decision 100% of the time. I'm convinced this is one of the attractive features of faith - to be entirely absolved without question.

I am not very religious. Someone posted on facebook one of those quotes that said something along lines of "god called and will take on all of your issues" everyone posted amen or god is good. I posted, no thanks, I prefer to learn and grow and handle my own issues, will call if I have a question

 

[ceecee]

I am not very religious. Someone posted on facebook one of those quotes that said something along lines of "god called and will take on all of your issues" everyone posted amen or god is good. I posted, no thanks, I prefer to learn and grow and handle my own issues, will call if I have a question

Exactly. I can't even fathom letting another human be in charge of me and my responsibilities.

 

[Bush]

What gets me is that if the universe is only six thousand years old, how can we see stars and galaxies that are millions of light-years away?

Well, of course, God created everything right as it appears to us now, including the light waves on their journey to earth.

Yes. You see, my friends, this is where the concept of Historical Science comes into play. According to this -- that's right; there are two different kinds of science. It's pretty convenient as a go-to explanation for pretty much anything, ever.

Essentially, the claim is that the laws of the universe simply worked differently in the past. Or maybe it didn't have physical laws. Or maybe, as Jennifer posits, that it was created 6,000 years ago as-is? Only eyewitness accounts count; we simply can't know what happened where those accounts don't exist.

And where are the most reliable eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past? Well, the Bible. Did you have to ask? If you did, I'm disappointed.

From the link above:

For example, some geologists take present-day rates of radiometric decay and rock formation and imagine that the rates have always been the same. That’s why they think the earth is so old (it’s not). But we can’t zip back in time to test this for accuracy.

What we can do, however, is check our historical research against a trustworthy eyewitness account. But what about for the history of the earth? Does something like that exist? You bet—and this amazing compendium of history isn’t hard to find. Just pull out your trusty Bible.

Let me walk you through something.

With the facts at hand, it seems that the universe is pretty old. But what if I could make the argument that the 6,000-year-old earth/universe only looks really old to us?

Suppose that we, the astrologers we are, just now discovered light emanating from a star that's 3 billion light years away. Well, with our current understanding, that must mean that the universe must be at least 3 billion years old, because the light travels at c. Velocity, position, time and all that. Right?

No. That understanding is erroneous. How do we know that that light wasn't created 6,000 years ago -- and that the light itself was created at the position it would be at 29,999,400 years old, with initial velocity toward us? What if light and its interactions worked differently before the first historical account -- that, say, light could travel at around 3 billion light-years per year; and that it just so happened that when we first observed it, it was traveling at c? After all, we didn't observe what happened before we .. ... well, observed it.

Aw, heck; we didn't observe anything until before we were created. But you know who did observe it? God.

 

[Qlip]

Yes. You see, my friends, this is where the concept of Historical Science comes into play.

Essentially, the claim is that the laws of the universe simply worked differently in the past. Maybe it didn't have physical laws. Only eyewitness accounts count; we simply can't know what happened where those accounts don't exist.

And where are the most reliable eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past? Well, the Bible. Did you have to ask? If you did, I'm disappointed.



Let me walk you through something.

With the facts at hand, it seems that the universe is pretty old. But what if I could make the argument that the 6,000-year-old earth/universe only looks really old to us?

Suppose that we, the astrologers we are, just now discovered light emanating from a star that's 3 billion light years away. Well, with our current understanding, that must mean that the universe must be at least 3 billion years old, because the light travels at c. Velocity, position, time and all that. Right?

No. That understanding is erroneous. How do we know that that light wasn't created 6,000 years ago -- and that the light itself was created at the position it would be at 29,999,400 years old, with initial velocity toward us? What if light and its interactions worked differently before the first historical account -- that, say, light could travel at around 3 billion light-years per year; and that it just so happened that when we first observed it, it was traveling at c? After all, we didn't observe what happened before we .. ... well, observed it.

Aw, heck; we didn't observe anything until before we were created. But you know who did observe it? God.

I kind of want to respond to you seriously, but I'm going to decline for the moment. Ever heard of Poe's Law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.[1][2] Poe's Law implies that parody will often be mistaken for sincere belief, and sincere beliefs for parody.[3]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The University of Pennsylvania museum has a really interesting exhibit on biblical archaeology.

 

[Bush]

I kind of want to respond to you seriously, but I'm going to decline for the moment. Ever heard of Poe's Law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Don't worry. My really real opinion is that the concept of historical science is total fucking nonsensical bullshit.

It's worth a side note that Historical Science was used pretty heavily during that Ken Ham v. Bill Hye debate. It's summarized here:

Go on, Mr. Ham. Tell us more!

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes. You see, my friends, this is where the concept of Historical Science comes into play. According to this -- that's right; there are two different kinds of science. It's pretty convenient as a go-to explanation for pretty much anything, ever.

Essentially, the claim is that the laws of the universe simply worked differently in the past. Or maybe it didn't have physical laws. Or maybe, as Jennifer posits, that it was created 6,000 years ago as-is? Only eyewitness accounts count; we simply can't know what happened where those accounts don't exist.

And where are the most reliable eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past? Well, the Bible. Did you have to ask? If you did, I'm disappointed.

From the link above:


Let me walk you through something.

With the facts at hand, it seems that the universe is pretty old. But what if I could make the argument that the 6,000-year-old earth/universe only looks really old to us?

Suppose that we, the astrologers we are, just now discovered light emanating from a star that's 3 billion light years away. Well, with our current understanding, that must mean that the universe must be at least 3 billion years old, because the light travels at c. Velocity, position, time and all that. Right?

No. That understanding is erroneous. How do we know that that light wasn't created 6,000 years ago -- and that the light itself was created at the position it would be at 29,999,400 years old, with initial velocity toward us? What if light and its interactions worked differently before the first historical account -- that, say, light could travel at around 3 billion light-years per year; and that it just so happened that when we first observed it, it was traveling at c? After all, we didn't observe what happened before we .. ... well, observed it.

Aw, heck; we didn't observe anything until before we were created. But you know who did observe it? God.

I see you are well-acquainted with this.

 

[grey_beard]

Yes. You see, my friends, this is where the concept of Historical Science comes into play. According to this -- that's right; there are two different kinds of science. It's pretty convenient as a go-to explanation for pretty much anything, ever.

Essentially, the claim is that the laws of the universe simply worked differently in the past. Or maybe it didn't have physical laws. Or maybe, as Jennifer posits, that it was created 6,000 years ago as-is? Only eyewitness accounts count; we simply can't know what happened where those accounts don't exist.

And where are the most reliable eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past? Well, the Bible. Did you have to ask? If you did, I'm disappointed.

From the link above:


Let me walk you through something.

With the facts at hand, it seems that the universe is pretty old. But what if I could make the argument that the 6,000-year-old earth/universe only looks really old to us?

Suppose that we, the astrologers we are, just now discovered light emanating from a star that's 3 billion light years away. Well, with our current understanding, that must mean that the universe must be at least 3 billion years old, because the light travels at c. Velocity, position, time and all that. Right?

No. That understanding is erroneous. How do we know that that light wasn't created 6,000 years ago -- and that the light itself was created at the position it would be at 29,999,400 years old, with initial velocity toward us? What if light and its interactions worked differently before the first historical account -- that, say, light could travel at around 3 billion light-years per year; and that it just so happened that when we first observed it, it was traveling at c? After all, we didn't observe what happened before we .. ... well, observed it.

Aw, heck; we didn't observe anything until before we were created. But you know who did observe it? God.

OK. What's wrong with that belief? Other than looking aghast at, and ridiculing anyone holding it?
Looking for technical or metaphysical reasons here.

 

[Raffaella]

That's an interesting point. I think Australia might have some. [MENTION=20828]Wixiw[/MENTION], is this a thing in Australia?

As a matter of fact, both Kenneth Ham and Answers in Genesis are from Australia.

But I haven't heard of a YEC branch or movement and, from what I've read, it's uncommon.

 

[Bush]

I see you are well-acquainted with this.

Well... know your enemy, right?

 

[Totenkindly]

OK. What's wrong with that belief? Other than looking aghast at, and ridiculing anyone holding it?
Looking for technical or metaphysical reasons here.

Generally, it begins as the argument of "There's no way anyone could know something for SURE" (otherwise known as "How do you know the magical invisible pooka didn't just make that happen, versus a particular pattern people have been observing back into history?" argument), which is technically possible even if not plausible, and then completely flips on it by assuming <"So God..."> as a replacement. Is it credible that someone's particular reading of their particular variation of the Bible is a better explanation than some historical and replicable process people have been observing for a long long time?

(It's even more obvious when you realize you can equally substitute in any religious book from any religious faith without changing the substance of the argument being made.)

 

[miss fortune]

I got a bad look last time I compared the bible stories to aesops fables

we studied biblical creation stories in a comparative mythology class I took... there were some angry people after that assignment, but on the bright side, they were the ones with the required text back in their room!

 

[Qlip]

Don't worry. My really real opinion is that the concept of historical science is total fucking nonsensical bullshit.

It's worth a side note that Historical Science was used pretty heavily during that Ken Ham v. Bill Hye debate. It's summarized here:

Go on, Mr. Ham. Tell us more!

I wasn't planning to ream you. I actually tend to like people of faith. Well, as much as I like people who arent. I admire people who have personal values and are dedicated to building something good in the world.

 

[Bush]

OK. What's wrong with that belief? Other than looking aghast at, and ridiculing anyone holding it?
Looking for technical or metaphysical reasons here.

Generally, it begins as the argument of "There's no way anyone could know something for SURE" (otherwise known as "How do you know the magical invisible pooka didn't just make that happen, versus a particular pattern people have been observing back into history?" argument), which is technically possible even if not plausible, and then completely flips on it by assuming <"So God..."> as a replacement. Is it credible that someone's particular reading of their particular variation of the Bible is a better explanation than some historical and replicable process people have been observing for a long long time?

(It's even more obvious when you realize you can equally substitute in any religious book from any religious faith without changing the substance of the argument being made.)

God damn it. I had a veritable essay halfway worked up and accidentally closed the page. I want to add something anyway. I'll be brief because I can't be arsed to type up another freaking essay

Science is a useful tool/framework insofar as it can help make predictions. Assuming that a good, robust, solid retrodiction can be found definitely helps flesh out that tool. It's a more workable assumption, at least.

Metaphysically, the concept of 'historical science' is a fat lot like strong logical positivism. It takes fundamental axioms and observed truths, discarding pretty much everything else. That's mostly an okay philosophy; at least somewhat reasonable. But historical science uses really lame axioms: a very, very strict interpretation of the Bible. Circling back to the technical -- that completely throws off the curve-fitting of the observations, so to speak. Bad curves make for bad maps.

 

[grey_beard]

God damn it. I had a veritable essay halfway worked up and accidentally closed the page. I want to add something anyway. I'll be brief because I can't be arsed to type up another freaking essay

Science is a useful tool/framework insofar as it can help make predictions. Assuming that a good, robust, solid retrodiction can be found definitely helps flesh out that tool. It's a more workable assumption, at least.

Metaphysically, the concept of 'historical science' is a fat lot like strong logical positivism. It takes fundamental axioms and observed truths, discarding pretty much everything else. That's mostly an okay philosophy; at least somewhat reasonable. But historical science uses really lame axioms: a very, very strict interpretation of the Bible. Circling back to the technical -- that completely throws off the curve-fitting of the observations, so to speak. Bad curves make for bad maps.

So the idea then is that one infers...or takes as axiomatic, that the laws of nature are (and always were) invariant. It's tidier, and gives confidence in one's predictions: for, philosophically, if the laws of nature changed once, what guarantee is there that they will remain fixed at any particular point in the future?
OTOH, if one is doing statistics, one is cautioned not to put reliance of predicted data outside of the range over which one's curve was fitted. People do it anyway, but still...

 

[Rambling]

Yes but when you have willful ignorance, you have a guaranteed out for any problem and any situation that you have. You give it to <insert deity> and let them handle it. The willfully ignorant person no longer carries any responsibility, no guilt, no shame, no anything for whatever the issue or problem is and whatever the outcome is what the deity decided and it's the right decision 100% of the time. I'm convinced this is one of the attractive features of faith - to be entirely absolved without question.

That is a statement about 'fate' or 'destiny'. Whatever deity you put in there, it is the categorical opposite of the God of the Bible, who seems to me in Jesus to be hell-bent (sorry!) on confronting us all with taking complete responsibility for our actions...past, present and future...which is, on occasion, terrifying in its wholeness, relentlessness and inexorability, but at least it feels like He is *interested*, and passionately cares about what humans *do* to each other and to Him...