Where religion and science clash - the dinosaurs

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

I'm agnostic bordering on cynical atheist at present but methinks you need to read the Book of Genesis. God created creatures before Man.

 

According to Genesis, creatures were created in verse 20 and man in verse 26.

 

Makes more sense if you realize that the bible was written in simple terms that don't reflect reality because it was wholly created by ignorant bronze age nomads.

 

If you abandon your premise that god exists, you won't need to jump through mental hoops and bend your holy book to try and fit the reality we now know.

 

If we accept that the holy book was written by ignorant bronze age nomads it easier to bend the holy book to fit any reality we now know.

 

is there anything in the bible that reflects any higher knowledge or philosophy than that available to the thoughtful, profound, (human) thinkers of its time? If it's a divinely delivered document for the ages, why isn't there any mention of stellar redshift, a few basic and immensely useful laws of physics (just some words on the fact that, at non-relativistic velocities, the acceleration of an oject is directly proportional to its mass and the force applied to it...) or information that would still today be really useful to the entire world: some kind of quantitative feel for the earth's petroleum reserves, and some suggestions about how to make a really good amorphous silicon solar cell - just some helpful pointers?

 

Oh, the bible is a figurative, symbolic work, you say - not to be taken that literally? It doesn't delve into specifics like that? Au contraire... it tells me about whether and how to beat my slaves, how to resolve the dilemma of an ox goring a neighbor or a slave (different procedures, depending on whether it's a slave or not...), what to do if a neighbor's donkey falls into a hole I dug... So I don't go for the idea that it's all symbolic and I shouldn't look for specifics.

 

So it seems that the same omniscient, all powerful God who put the bones into the dirt to LOOK like there were millions of years old, and who fixed the stars and the microwave background in the sky to LOOK like there had been a big bang, didn't choose to comment any further ahead in time than donkeys and slaves when he set down His Word in the one and only true document for the ages.

 

It would have been useless to us to have been given any knowledge of physics, astronomy, etc. We were, at the time, far too ignorant of all that to appreciate any of it. And it would've robbed of us the joy of discovering all this information. We appreciate more what we work for than what is given.

 

For the religion to have any validity, it has to be.

 

Please explain why.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

It's not a science textbook but the valid question is why not? If god is all knowing, why did he not use the opportunity to tell people a few scientific facts that would alleviate their misery rather than talking about a limited selection of problems that were already understood at that time concerning pigs, shellfish, "leprosy of houses", etc.

 

In the Old Testament, similar to Judaism I believe, says to abstain from pork and shellfish.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

The problem with holy books is that they aren't internally consistent, nor do they agree with the physical evidence.

 

Thats what happens when you have multiple authors.

[redfathom]

I want to know how we were all to ignorant, when there were several tribes in South America who studied math, astronomy and science...Aztec, Mayan's

 

I think someone wanted to keep us ignorant. The more I listen to religious people, primarily Christian's, the more agnostic I become.

 

Just today on my fav radio station they were talking about CA Prop 8. He said God tells him that homosexuality is wrong. Then he says that the Bible has many rules and he chooses to follow some but not all of them and that he breaks rules every day. Oh, but he can tell other people what rules they are and are not allowed to break and continue breaking all the rules he wants too...

 

Don't get me started on Creationism, people living w/ Dinosaurs 4,000 years ago, phualeese!

 

Or the Christians who state that Christianity has never hurt anyone for their/it's beliefs...

[dunstable]

Christians and members of other organized religions seem to argue like this:

1. God says P.

2. God is infallible.

3. Therefore, P is true.

 

This is the classic logical fallacy of argument by authority. It can be used to support any proposition P but in reality never proves anything.

[clv0116]

It's not a science textbook but the valid question is why not?

 

I've been particularly vexed by the absence of good salsa recipes in "Principia Mathematica" as well. I guess it's just outside the scope of the work, but I can't condone the omission.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Regarding earlier post about Genesis.

 

I must never post that early in the morning. Temporary case of dyslexia aggravated by 3 hours of sleep and no caffeine in my blood.

[Eve]

Do you know what I dont understand within this conversation?.. why the emphasis relies on proof being an external event only. I mean, how can one evidence God unless it is from a supernatural event? Hence any scientific evidence would surely belong within the realms of medical miracles and those who investigate paranormal events, (of which there are countless examples)

 

I dont know, I wanted proof personal to me within my search for God and it certainly didnt come in the form of dinosaur bones. Of course I cant say anything negative about dinosaur bones in general, nor those who devote their life to such matters. It just seems to be a rather vague means of proving that God does or does not exist.

 

To me this just proves that a heathen is a heathen because they choose not to search for God themselves.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[dunstable]

I've been particularly vexed by the absence of good salsa recipes in "Principia Mathematica" as well. I guess it's just outside the scope of the work, but I can't condone the omission.

I think I see. You mean the omnipotent god had to accept limitations on the scope of his book? Fair enough. I just hope readers bear those limitations in scope in mind when looking to the book for guidance.

[clv0116]

I think I see. You mean the omnipotent god had to accept limitations on the scope of his book?

 

To be fair that should be answered by a true believer but it seems reasonable to me to choose to stay on topic in a given work. For instance I'm quite sure Newton had a lot of knowledge and insight that he didn't publish in a work on Calculus.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I just hope readers bear those limitations in scope in mind when looking to the book for guidance.

 

I'd again say it's reasonable for believers to look elsewhere for an explanation of Quantum Electrodynamics or how to cook a great beef steak. In fact it would be silly to expect anything else.

[dunstable]

I'd again say it's reasonable for believers to look elsewhere for an explanation of Quantum Electrodynamics or how to cook a great beef steak. In fact it would be silly to expect anything else.

Not just on such matters that are not in the bible at all but also on matters that are in the book that are addressed inadequately such as ethical philosophy?

[clv0116]

Not just on such matters that are not in the bible at all but also on matters that are in the book that are addressed inadequately such as ethical philosophy?

 

Again best addressed by a true believer, or perhaps a Bible scholar, but since no one else here seems to have actually read the book and I'm here I'll do what I can.

 

The Bible appears to me to be primarily a book relating the events surrounding an ongoing cosmos-spanning debate regarding the right of a creator to rule the things created. Everything else seems to be peripheral and only discussed to the degree it must be to support one side of that argument. That seems reasonable to me.

 

Since it's the most influential book ever penned, I also consider a person who has not read it completely through at least once to be fundamentally lacking in their education.

[Moai]

According to Genesis, creatures were created in verse 20 and man in verse 26.

 

 

 

If we accept that the holy book was written by ignorant bronze age nomads it easier to bend the holy book to fit any reality we now know.

 

Why bend it at all? Why give it any validity whatsoever, save as a window into a more brutal time in human history?

 

It would have been useless to us to have been given any knowledge of physics, astronomy, etc. We were, at the time, far too ignorant of all that to appreciate any of it. And it would've robbed of us the joy of discovering all this information. We appreciate more what we work for than what is given.

 

Cop-out. If it did contain one shred of useful information it would prove beyond doubt that it was authored by a divine intelligence--or at least an intelligence greater than human.

 

Let's say it said something as simple as "wash your hands often." Imagine how many lives that would have saved. I wonder how many died in order to preserve the "joy" of discovering basic sanitation.

 

It obviously doesn't matter if the rules make any sense or not, people still followed (and still follow) them. There is nothing wrong with shellfish, yet the Bible says not to eat them, so they didn't. Don't eat pork, so they didn't. If the Bible said, "boil your utensils after using them" they would've.

 

Please explain why.

 

Here we go:

 

1. The Bible asserts that Man is sinful.

2. Man became sinful because Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate fruit from a tree that was forbidden to them. This is what is known as Original Sin.

3. Because of this event, all of Mankind is cursed by god from that time forward, as sin entered the world based on this event.

4. God does not like sin. He punishes it. In fact, he hates sin so much he flooded the entire world to get rid of it. (Ask yourself if this plan was effective.)

5. He destroys Sodom and Gommorah because of it.

6. He invokes plagues, slaughters livestock and children, commands genocide against sinners, and describes hundreds of commandments establishing just what is or isn't a sin.

 

Remember--none of this would be happening if not for that singular event in the Garden of Eden.

 

7. God decides that something should be done to save people from his wrath, as all people are sinful and deserving of punishment, given the curse on Adam and his descendants.

8. He has Mary give birth to his son Jesus.

9. Jesus is sacrificed, and because he was innocent of sin, his blood covers and forgives all of the sins committed by Mankind, so long as they believe in him.

 

If the Garden of Eden story is false, the very existence of "sin" is open for debate, and there is no need for a "savior" to save us from the punishment meted out for it.

[Moai]

Again best addressed by a true believer, or perhaps a Bible scholar, but since no one else here seems to have actually read the book and I'm here I'll do what I can.

I've read it. Numerous times, and refer to it often.

 

The Bible appears to me to be primarily a book relating the events surrounding an ongoing cosmos-spanning debate regarding the right of a creator to rule the things created. Everything else seems to be peripheral and only discussed to the degree it must be to support one side of that argument. That seems reasonable to me.

 

The Bible is actually a series of books. It is a history of the Hebrew people and a record of the laws that their god gave them, and various penalties for ignoring them. It is also a record of part of Jesus' life and what Paul thought about it. And the mushroom induced rantings of John at the end.

 

It is unreasonable to suggest that it is only "one" side of he debate, since there are thousands of gods with millions of rules. The Bible is the version that the Hebrews came up with, and later the Christians.

 

Since it's the most influential book ever penned, I also consider a person who has not read it completely through at least once to be fundamentally lacking in their education.

 

Perhaps. Any study of history shows the relevant parts of the bible were used to justify this or that atrocity, slavery, misogyny, etc. so i would say reading the whole thing isn't completely necessary.

[clv0116]

The Bible is actually a series of books. It is a history of the Hebrew people and a record of the laws that their god gave them, and various penalties for ignoring them. It is also a record of part of Jesus' life and what Paul thought about it. And the mushroom induced rantings of John at the end.

 

That's essentially like describing a human as a collection of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and trace elements. Technically true but really missing the overall picture.

[clv0116]

It is unreasonable to suggest that it is only "one" side of he debate, since there are thousands of gods with millions of rules.

 

The total number of sides in the debate is not relevant, only one is presented in the Bible. Additionally only one opposing view is mentioned, so it seems logical that all those other thousands and millions are probably part of some other story.

[dunstable]

That's essentially like describing a human as a collection of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and trace elements. Technically true but really missing the overall picture.

What is the overall picture then?

[clv0116]

What is the overall picture then?

 

I think, this (again):

 

The Bible appears to me to be primarily a book relating the events surrounding an ongoing cosmos-spanning debate regarding the right of a creator to rule the things created.

 

 

I must admit, I find that debate fascinating what with technology going where it appears to be going today.

[dunstable]

I think, this (again):

The Bible appears to me to be primarily a book relating the events surrounding an ongoing cosmos-spanning debate regarding the right of a creator to rule the things created.

So you've repeated what you said earlier. I prefer Moai's straightforward summary of the scope of the bible, which you criticized as missing the overall picture, to your summary, which is so high level as to be meaningless.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Please explain why.

 

Here we go:

 

1. The Bible asserts that Man is sinful.

2. Man became sinful because Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate fruit from a tree that was forbidden to them. This is what is known as Original Sin.

3. Because of this event, all of Mankind is cursed by god from that time forward, as sin entered the world based on this event.

4. God does not like sin. He punishes it. In fact, he hates sin so much he flooded the entire world to get rid of it. (Ask yourself if this plan was effective.)

5. He destroys Sodom and Gommorah because of it.

6. He invokes plagues, slaughters livestock and children, commands genocide against sinners, and describes hundreds of commandments establishing just what is or isn't a sin.

 

Remember--none of this would be happening if not for that singular event in the Garden of Eden.

 

7. God decides that something should be done to save people from his wrath, as all people are sinful and deserving of punishment, given the curse on Adam and his descendants.

8. He has Mary give birth to his son Jesus.

9. Jesus is sacrificed, and because he was innocent of sin, his blood covers and forgives all of the sins committed by Mankind, so long as they believe in him.

 

If the Garden of Eden story is false, the very existence of "sin" is open for debate, and there is no need for a "savior" to save us from the punishment meted out for it.

 

Nice, well thought out. But, I fail to see how that supports your argument.

 

I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Bible never claims to be a science textbook.

For the religion to have any validity, it has to be.

[Moai]

Nice' date=' well thought out. But, I fail to see how that supports your argument.[/quote']

 

The Creation Story must be literally true or there is no reason for a Messiah. Men do bad things and good things because it is our nature to do so, and there is no reason to assume that there is some eternal punishment for things done here on Earth.

 

As far as Creationists are concerned, there is nothing more to know besides "God did it, I believe it." While Creationism is not science in the least bit, that doesn't stop believers from asserting that it is.

[dunstable]

The Creation Story must be literally true or there is no reason for a Messiah.

 

I agree with that but would add that the Messiah concept never made any sense to me. I can see how primitive peoples might have thought that they could transfer responsibility for their sins to an animal, as for example when they drove out a goat ("scapegoat") and that Jesus acted in effect as a human scapegoat, but that entire notion is surely just stupid to any sane, educated, modern human? If any religious person in this discussion could explain to me how the Jesus story makes sense nowadays I would be much obliged.

[clv0116]

.... so high level as to be meaningless.

 

You think the in depth discussion of the fundamental question of whether the creator of intelligent life has the right to govern, indeed the right of life and death decisions, over said creation, is meaningless?

 

Wow.

 

 

 

If any religious person in this discussion could explain to me how the Jesus story makes sense nowadays I would be much obliged.

 

It makes sense as evidence in the above mentioned debate.

[dunstable]

You think the in depth discussion of the fundamental question of whether the creator of intelligent life has the right to govern, indeed the right of life and death decisions, over said creation, is meaningless?

I thought you said that the bible should be considered authoritative only within its scope, and I thought you were going to elucidate us on that scope. To my mind, you haven't done that.

[clv0116]

I thought you said that the bible should be considered authoritative only within its scope, and I thought you were going to elucidate us on that scope. To my mind, you haven't done that.

 

From the very beginning of the book the stage is set and the initial questions are raised, is sentient life (humans and non-humans in this case) obligated to serve and obey their creator? Is this the most beneficial for all concerned? Is it fair?

 

The question is put forth very early on, the stage is set, and the experiment (or debate, depending on your viewpoint) begins. The rest of the Bible presents evidence and providence for said evidence, along with arguments.

 

Indeed, according to the Bible the history of man after Eden is essentially an ongoing legal process.