Well, sweet deal.

BOLD: And believing these explanations (theories) hold true in spite of their violation of what we believe are the "natural laws" requires belief in the "supernatural" (not necessarily ghosts, stigmata, etc.)

To answer your final point, no, I am a physicist, I have conducted no experiments, nor have I read "all" the relevant literature. I have been interested in astronomy and astrophysics since I was able to read, and have read my fair share of books (I read that kind of stuff for leisure, typically). I am not dismissing anything. There are some incredibly intelligent people, much more intelligent that I, working on these problems. I was simply replying to Madhammer's question "does religion imply belief in the supernatural" with the fact that even our "understanding" of the known universe REQUIRES a belief in things that are contrary to how we think the natural universe works.

I don't think that that makes a very good argument for the existence of the supernatural, though. Namely because the Big Bang Theory is a theory... and it was arrived at through observation. It may be rejected in the future if a better idea presents itself through further study. Which is certainly quite different from the "it is written..." approach that assumes that truth has already been revealed, and anything we discover after that point will only underscore that truth (unless it contradicts said truth, in which case it must be rejected as anti-theistic).

I did misunderstand that, thank you.


Well, in fairness, I do think that's a position set up by the holy texts. They sort of dig their own graves.


I agree that just because something was not written by God does not make it worthless - obviously I'd have to think that. But I do think that because something was written by men from 2000 years ago, it makes that thing pretty worthless as a modern guide to life.


Well, again, I think the Holy Texts create that trap for themselves. Ignoring that, if it was written by men, guess what? I'm a man. You're a man. And we are likely much more educated men than they were, so why do need these men to tell us what's what?


And I disagree. Part of being "fittest" is being empathetic and cooperative with others.


Well, I would personally disagree with that. Doing good for others is good for the individual - why do you need more than that? We are what we are, and there's no reason to be ashamed or feel that we require some sort of elevation. Practical sense is all we have.


The Big Bang is not contrary to what we know about the natural universe. That's why I said you should read up on it.

A couple quick points:

a) Dismissing the Bible because it's old is kind of a highschool argument (like OMG that music sucks because it's older than me)... I mean, we don't dismiss Aristotle's Physics because it's old. What's the threshold of old-ness beyond which a given text is irrelevant?

b) I think that the text itself (meaning the Bible) says a lot less about itself than the Church has done.

c) Even so, IMO there's more to translation than just rendering the words of the text into our language. The meaning should also be translated, which is a more dynamic and collaborative process. We should recognize the religious language that was being spoken when these texts were being written, and not just transliterate it (so to speak) to our modern context. The fact that this rarely happens within Christendom doesn't mean that it shouldn't be happening (if anything, it reinforces the opposite conclusion).

The threshold lies at the point wherein the text in question begins to become a hindrance to our ability to get along because it's got us protesting and killing each other over the archaic beliefs of a civilization long since passed.


Perhaps.


I'd be willing to concede this - but I'd have to ask you to produce for me something from the text that has value in modern life, and that we couldn't figure out without the book.

Actually, it is. Within the model of the Big Bang, there's the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. To address some of the shortcomings within the model, we had to come up with the "Cosmic inflation" theory. However, in order to accept this revised theory you'd STILL have to accept that something outside of our understanding of physical laws is in play (For instance, you must accept that some nameless, not-understood force outside the observable universe completely encompasses it and is currently the cause of the inflation. See: inflaton.)

I have read up on it.

This reminds me of Prime-Collector's diatribes. (Not the emotion, but the underlying point.) To claim that religion (or Christianity if you want to be specific) has been a uniformly negative influence on the world displays an almost willful ignorance of world history.

"The book" has profoundly influenced Western thought, so how would that even be possible? You "figure out" stuff because you've known about it since childhood, and it comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So do you mean something that you wouldn't have thought of, or something that you wouldn't have done? Because I would say with a fair bit of certainty that something as well-known as "turning the other cheek" is very much contrary to human nature. Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. etc.

*sigh*

Okay, but you do understand that these problems have work-arounds to solve them. These work-arounds contribute to our understanding of the universe, and therefore do not contradict it, and therefore are not supernatural. The work-arounds are properly labeled as "hypothesis" when appropriate, and no one's claiming to have definitively worked out the origin of the universe in the first place. But we work with what we got.

Hey, you should read another post in this thread:



Logical proofs. If we steal from each other without reservation, society falls apart. We can break that down and understand why.


Turning the other cheek is usually good advice, but again we can break down why that's a good idea rationally.

I don't think praying for those who persecute you is any good advice at all, because prayer offers no tangible benefit.

FECKING QUOTE TAGS




What I mean is that religious groupthink usually leads to bad results, but individuals motivated by religious ideals have effected positive change, and have done so recently. (e.g. MLK) But this is all tangent; the point is that rejecting something because it's "old" is a non-argument. Unless you can demonstrate that old = worthless.

yeah I know, I was just quoting my point was that you wouldn't want to pray for someone who's persecuting you. (Though I would say that prayer does indeed offer benefits, just not the kind you're thinking of. Again, translate the message, not just the words.)

But since you want to break it down rationally, here you go:

One more thing, real quick, because I want to clear up a potential misunderstanding re: my perspective. I'm not saying that the Bible (or whatever) must have meaning if you "translate the message" and all that; I'm only saying that it can have meaning.

Re: the Big Bang: Requiring something outside our current understanding != requiring the supernatural.


Strictly speaking, yes. This includes Buddhism. While much of the surviving religions of the world have done so by the expansion and development into territory that is more properly regarded as 'philosophy', what ultimately distinguishes religion from philosophy is the supernatural.


Well, reincarnation (transmigration of souls) is supernatural. And Buddhism (as I've understood the religion) regards the achievement of Nirvana as being a state of divinity and perfection, and the equivalent of a deity.


I think this is one of the many reasons why Western religion is the primary one under the spotlight. However, one could interpret this as just being the western world taking everything that comes into its grasp, including religion, and putting it in its own spotlights by making it a point of social contention.


I think this goes into the religion/philosophy distinction I mentioned above. So I will ask..
Another question: if we subtract all the supernatural from religions and leave behind only their respective philosophies, doesn't that fulfill the purpose of "a morally upright life" (whatever one takes to be moral)?

Hey, you're wife's in labor and you're an hour out from the hospital and the nearest working phone. Quick: do you want to drive her in the '63 pick-up or the '08?

Things do, in fact, lose their relevance and usefulness as time progresses.


Even giving you the benefit of the doubt on prayer's benefits, the point is that, unless you think the book is, in fact, the word of God, you catch yourself in a logical trap. If you think that men wrote the Bible, then you have to understand that men came up with the concepts contained therein. It was within the reach of their knowledge, so it is certainly within the reach of our own.

If you think that the Bible was written by God, then you have to hold God accountable for all the logical inconsistencies and confusion, and even the hate and bigotry, contained therein.

All or nothing.

I would really like to see you try to use this argument in a literature class, or a history class, or anywhere else. I think you're just allowing yourself a reactionary attitude in this case because of all the people who act like the Bible is everything ever.


I'm not sure what exactly you think I believe here... but I certainly don't have a problem with the Bible being written by men. I also would take exception to the notion that if someone thought of something, then it would occur to anyone else as well. Is there no point to the collected wisdom of the ages? Do we not build upon the achievements of those who came before us? Again, I think you're making a special case here because of the loud chorus of religious folks telling *you* that the Bible is "all or nothing".

Note that I did not say things lose ALL relevance with age. And, yes, the bible has relevance, but it is given far more than its fair share of weight. It should sit on the shelf next to the Iliad, not guiding millions of people as a morality handbook.


I use a more general "you". And, no, not everyone is going to have all the same good ideas, but do you honestly mean to imply that in the thousands of years since the Bible was written no one else would have been capable of figuring out, "Hey, you know things are all around better when we're nicer to each other?"

Is that really the issue? You just seem so determined to proclaim the Bible's irrelevance. And judging from your above comment, it seems that your determination is driven by a desire to refute the millions of people who use it as a morality handbook. If you've got an issue with the church, more power to you. I do too. But I don't think that being reactionary about it is going to help anyone. And I don't think it's going to lead you to the truth, either.

I also think that you're viewing the Bible through too narrow a lens. You seem to be really caught up in this "it must be literal to be true" mindset. Your comparison of it to the Iliad (as opposed to, say, the Bhagavad Gita) is illuminating. I mean, really... Do I think that nobody else could have come up with this stuff? No, of course not. But that isn't the point. Again, just take this argument of yours and apply it to anything else, and you'll see how needlessly antagonistic it is. You still seem to be operating from the assumption that I'm claiming some kind of special or unique divine influence behind the Bible. But for goodness' sake, is it wrong to say "hey this is a good idea" and just leave it at that, without going through this torturous critical exercise? I don't care who thought of it first, or if someone could have come up with it now. Good ideas are still good ideas. And when you look at the totality of world religion, there are certain common themes that, I think, taken together can present us with a bunch of good ideas. I just don't think you have to push so hard against this; I don't know what purpose it serves.

I thought so...


Because I find it largely irrelevant. And the parts I find relevant I don't see as unique to the scripture or dependent on it in any way.


Well, I do. I mean, I would never deny them their right to use it, but I will point out what I find erroneous about such behavior. What, exactly, is wrong with that?


Cool.


Why do you think I'm being reactionary? It's not like I haven't thought long and hard about this. I was raised Methodist. There's nothing easy about abandoning things instilled in you since birth.


If we're defining truth as "the most accurate picture possible of how our world and universe works" then I know the Bible won't lead me there.


I don't need it to be literal to be true, but I do need it to be logically consistent with itself and the information we've managed to obtain about the universe in order to classify as "truth". It is neither literal nor logically consistent.


A few good ideas doesn't make the Bible important. Aesop's fables have a lot of good lessons to teach, too, but no one gathers into a building once a week to sing the praises of the Fox and the Grapes. What is it about these few good ideas that justifies time spent in worship to a character someone made-up* instead of a thousand other demonstrably constructive and meaningful things you could be doing with your time?





*Not trying to pull out the "Fairy Tale" drama again, but the cold, hard truth is that Atheists regard God as a work of fiction. We can't help it. It is, by definition, how you get to be an Atheist.

I just want to applaud LMH & Hobbes (and everyone else in this thread) for the amazing discussion at hand.

I also want to point out a stumbling block that Hobbes and LMH seem to be having in their understnading of each other when talking about the obsolescence of and object, idea, or in this case a collection of texts.
Hobbes keeps bringing up practical tools, such as Cars, when he speaks of Old items loosing relevance.
while LMH brings up Art, such as Literature, or Music.

Of course, Hobbes has already acknowledged that The Bible should be up on that same shelf with all the other literary greats; like The Illiad, Candide, or Alice In Wonderland.

But LMH continues to assert that the bible is a tool while making comparisons to Art(s).

And I do have to agree with Hobbes in that the BIBLE pretty much sets it's own traps in terms of the misunderstandings created by its followers. As discussed in this very thread - at no point does either the new or the old testament does GOD say "Hey this is an optional rule, if you don't like it, you can also try a variety of other options"

He (and his scribes and his follower and his priests, and his son's etc etc) in fact say very clearly
YOU MUST DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (often times followed with a: Or I will smite you with my Mighty Molten Salt-Rod of Spankiness)

I had a couple of comments I wanted to make but, as I catch up with the discussion, I find that most o them have been addressed already.

But I do love these discussions.

Thank you.

I would prefer that the Bible be compared to (and categorized with) other religious texts, rather than art or literature. I only mentioned things like Shakespeare to point out the vacuity of the "it's old, so it's useless" argument. No serious scholar would ever take such a position.

I sense that Hobbes is not arguing with me so much as he is arguing with the Christian church, as evidenced by this comment:



Hey man, ask them, not me. I really think you're missing where I'm coming from, which is not the standard / orthodox / whatever Christian position on the Bible. And what's frustrating to me about this is that I haven't tried to argue with you or take up a position contrary to yours. I just think that your wholesale dismissal of the Bible is a bit, yes, reactionary. I'm not saying that you have to care about it, or read it, or anything. Do whatever you want with your life, and may you live long and prosper. But I'm saying that objectively, apart from whatever personal feelings you may have about it, you must acknowledge that it is indeed an important book, on many levels. It's a moot point to debate whether it has anything to tell us in terms of moral instruction, because it's already had a profound influence on our culture. You know, the whole "Judeo-Christian ethic" thing? That's been around since like, forever? It's there, man. It's part of our culture.

It's just like with anything else. If Einstein (lol, on-topic) hadn't come up with the theory of relativity, would someone else have? Sure, probably. But it was Einstein who came up with it, so he's an important person nowadays. I just want to be totally crystal clear that I'm not saying "the Bible matters because it's from God," but "the Bible matters because it's been foundational to our understanding of morality." And it's been foundational because it had things to say that people over time thought were valuable. And if you want to say that the Bible's unimportant, then you have to say that its lasting contribution to our society is also unimportant.

In fairness, I would put them all on the "art shelf" and not consider them tools at all.


That's probably true, but you're the only one who'll keep the discussion going with me.

Here, though, is where you and I part ways:


I completely disagree. People had morality before the bible was written, and they will have morality long after it is gone. And lots of things that the Bible commands we all know to be immoral (going back to my discussion with the notably absent Agent Zero) in spite of our moral guidebook telling us otherwise. Since we're capable of making those judgment calls, we know the Bible is not what gives us, or leads us in, our real morality. Has it shaped our culture? Yes. But, I mean, so did slavery*.

I believe it is time to abandon its influence in our lives and move towards a secular, rationally based morality that all but the most extremist of us already follow anyway (again, whether we admit to ourselves or not).







*This is an extreme comparison to make a point. Don't nobody flip out.

I'm not trying to claim that the Bible is unique in its moral voice; I'm only using it as my example since you wanted to talk about it. This is why I prefer not to restrict such discussions to Christianity (or Judeo-Christianity); it does create the impression that the Bible is the only show in town. But to bring in another example, the Bhagavad Gita (which I mentioned earlier) carries a similar message of looking beyond self and the material world in order to find the way to best live our lives. And I do happen to think that that's a message that people need to hear. People need to be reminded that there's more to life than their 401(k) and the latest toy they want. You may talk about how we all know that society works better when we work together, but is that something that we really do? Society holds together by apathy as much as anything else. It's certainly not because of some moral imperative that we all carry with us.

I'm not saying that we need the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible to tell us these things. But we need something to do it. And I think it's really silly to reject the wisdom of thousands of years of human history just because it's couched in religious language. It's just a medium; you don't have to accept Jesus Christ is your personal savior to agree with what he said about religious hypocrisy, or reaching out to the poor and needy, or denying self, or anything else. And you don't even have to agree with everything he said, either. You're the one with the all-or-nothing approach; why not rather just relax a bit and take from it what seems worthy of preserving for posterity? Surely the same is done with any other field of study.

Sorry, but people need reality. The metaphor, the religious language, confuses things. The metaphor leads to suicide bombers and Fred Phelps. The message you speak of is worth preserving, but isn't it better to abandon the confusing metaphor and fictional characters altogether and just talk about what people need to do to make the world a better place and why they should really do it?

*Ahem*

BULLSHIT

Phelps uses religion as an excuse for his nonsense. He'd use another excuse if religion wasn't around.

But would they really actually read that?

Throughout history people have learned lessons through stories of what others did, whether real or imaginary. Aesop's fables are one example. Would it have been better if Aesop had just written a pamphlet saying "Hey guys, it might be good to think about doing some nice stuff for others"?

What you suggest has been happening for centuries (see Jefferson's "edited" Bible). I hate to sound elitist, but I'm willing to bet that well-educated and well-read people don't often find themselves in Fred Phelps' church or strapping bombs to their chests. Rational people can read the Bible or any other religious text and take from it what they find valuable, because they know better than to read it as though they were a 12th century peasant who was afraid of the sky falling. This would indicate to me that the problem lies elsewhere.

P.S. I think Wildling has a good point too -- people like stories. (see summer movie threads for examples)

Exactly my point.


Probably. But if the populace was engaged in an open and frank discussion about human interaction and morality free of the opinions of men dead for 2000 years, it would be much harder for him to convince other people he's right and gain support.


Well, the difference is Aesop said, "Let me tell you a story" and so, even today, we know none of that stuff ever took place. We don't debate over it, and we don't kill in the name of the Fox. I have nothing against fiction-as-education-tool, I have a problem with people passing the fiction off as absolute reality.


Well, my concern is reaching exactly the kind of people who do find themselves in those positions. They need what I'm talking about the most, and are as deserving of understanding their universe as you and I . But I think many people capable of rationality aren't properly educated in making a distinction between one and the other. Let's make sure they get educated, let's teach people that they're capable of being a better person on their own, and that this life is the only life we can guarantee they'll get, so they should make it count for something.

now let's go bitch about politics

Hmm... I think what many atheists find so insidious about not just the Bible but religion in general is that it packages up all the 'good things' along with 'hey this all comes from <insert my god here> worshiphimkthxbye'.

A well-educated, well-read, and rational person can mean say, "I believe in God," and mean something entirely different than when a political organization like the Catholic Church says and promulgates the same message. And the message as a whole is structured in a way such that even a reasoned, rational "believer" assists far more in the process of proselytization and conversion than not.



For every well-educated, well-read, studied believer, there are many more believers reading the Bible like 12 century peasants. Aside from the statistically rare exception, your religion (if you have one, and most of the world does) is determined almost entirely by where you were born and what your family believes, and not by any well-educated, well-read exposure. Even here in the US where it's about as free as it gets and probably has the highest number of free-thinking individuals, such individuals are vastly outnumbered by people who just grow to believe what they're raised to believe.

Of course, if what I described is the case and is a problem with Judeo-Christian culture, it's also a problem amongst all religions. And you could argue that's it's due as much to the level of free access to literature and education as it is to what a religion says.

This is true. However if you take the bible as a tool for teaching morality then whether the people in the stories actually existed or not is irrelevant. It doesn't help someone figure out the meaning behind, for example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah if some guy digs up Lot's wife salt pillar.



I'm with ya there.

I don't think its Hobbes who has that approach specifically. Once again if we go back to the cherry picking discussion earlier in this thread - It is the BOOK itself who propogates the ALL OR NOTHING attitude.

What's more, while we all know that YOU can sit here and discuss these topics rationally - you are the exception not the norm (as you admit yourself). So how is this ALL OR NOTHING approach helping REAL CHRISTIANS? or was Jesus's message ONLY meant for those with degrees in theological discussion?



You know, the bible teaches that they all would have been just fine if Job raped his daughter a few times.

ha, you still have that smiley

I would be very very very hesitant to claim that I'm some kind of Special Christian or something. But hear what I'm saying -- yes, the book puts forward the "all or nothing" mentality, if you take it at face value. But who says that we have to take it at face value? Aren't we smart enough not to believe that a story about talking snakes and forbidden fruit is literally true? Perhaps I should rephrase -- shouldn't we be?

P.S. I don't have a degree; I dropped out of seminary. REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE'D

So, wait...you agree we should teach and spread a secular morality?


I agree with that in theory. The problem is that so many people do believe in them, that in practice you can't make the separation.

Plus, lots of stuff in the Bible is just immoral - so that's the other problem, weeding out the good from the bad.

That's why I say scrap it altogether and teach secular morality.

I think that morality is morality... people back then used religious language (and justification for their morality) that we wouldn't use now. But I wouldn't advocate throwing out morality that originates in religious sources any more than I would advocate throwing out "The Origin of the Species" just because we've progressed from that point. Actually, I think that's a helpful analogy; modern evolutionary theory isn't the same as Darwin's original theory, but it is based on it, and the basic idea he put forward is still the core of the whole thing.

I mean, it's just evolution... the evolution of ideas, of methods of communication, etc. Sure there are some parts of the Bible that are totally outdated and irrelevant, but just like wacky bits of DNA, we can leave them behind and keep the bits that help us to become better / stronger / faster.

How could you forget harder?

But tons of people still use that language and those justifications. You are rational, Pete. But lots of religious folk are not specifically because they're mired in that language.


But all scientists have actively discarded the pieces of Darwin's theories that were wrong or mistaken...regardless of what Ben Stein may have us believe, no one holds that book as Dogma. Religion makes people much less resistant to change than does biological study.

DRY RED EYES?

I won't deny your observations at all. But all I can say is, the fact of people clinging (lol) to literalism doesn't mean that *I* have to chuck the book. I happen to like (some parts of) it.

I dunno, I just don't feel like I can be responsible for someone else's thinking (or lack thereof). I mean, yeah it sucks that people are so weird about this, and it really sucks that being so literalistic about the Bible affects other people's lives (viz. the fight you know is coming this election cycle about gay marriage). But it also sucks that people are racist or sexist or xenophobic or whatever else. I think that the problem is ignorance, and the answer is education.

Either that, or deny the vote to stupid people.

I'm not inherently opposed.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

I can't recall from history when technocracy has been demonstrably shown NOT to work..

Jesus all the way!

Run on that platform LMH and I WILL vote for you.




*nominates this as most thought out post of the day*

...or WILL you??

How many superdelegates are endorsing you so far?

I'm having trouble with the working-class white vote...

Like what, exactly? Kosher? I keep it in the