Woman to Woman

By Anonymous

July 13, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Because doubt is a more intelligent position than blind acceptance, of course.

By GOB

July 13, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

For example, Dr. Bryant Wood, an archeologist, mechanical engineer and Director of Associates of Biblical Research, gained international acclaim via findings that correctly identified the age of the ancient city of Jericho and how it was destroyed - which precisely matched the seemingly mythological biblical accounts.

I would love to see the archeological evidence that shows how sound waves destroyed a wall 3500 years ago…Just thinking about it makes me nervous about going to a football game this fall. Athens is bound to be destroyed after a touchdown one of these days…

By Chilao

July 13, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Playboy cartoon this month(No, I do not remember the centerfold’s “hobbies”).

A group of hairy cavemen are gathered around the campfire, hacking away at a piece of log, eventual result MIGHT be a wheel. Walking away on the side is a tall, naked, shapely, attractive woman.

One caveman remarks “Well, I am more of a follower of Darwin, but when I see her I have to think of the concept of *Intelligent Design”.

Aren’t they still looking for the ark on MtArarat? I expect when they find it they might also come across some fossilized dinosaur eggs.

My oldest sister’s high school boyfriend went over there for a find-the-ark expedition back around 1970. Seems he ended up in a Turkish prison for 5 years, some things they do not like you to possess, let alone try to smuggle across the border out. Talking hashish, not artifacts. LOL

By Thinking About It

July 13, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

If “faith” means believing whole-heartedly in something that can’t be proven, and trusting in something you can’t see with your eyes, then why are “people of faith” always trying to “prove” their beliefs with an old, highly-questionable history book?

Then they turn blue in the face arguing that even though this book is really a collection of writings from different people in different centuries thousands of years ago, and has been handled, edited, translated innumerable times, added to, abridged, and changed throughout the centuries by MEN, on the orders of clergy and monarchs, whose primary goal in life is to attain and retain power and money, that the book is somehow infallible. Huh?

If you ask me to have faith in God the Creator of the universe, then why do I need a book to “prove” it? If you ask me to have faith in a book, then I’m going to read it and note contradictions, inconsistencies, and the potential fallibility of the many authors and translational history. So, make up your minds, already. You’re contradicting yourselves, and that lessens my ability to have faith in your proclamations.

By GOB

July 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Short answer: The same reason educated people dont believe that Zeus lives at the top of Mount Olympus…

Longer Anwser: The reason that more highly educated people dont tend to take the bible literally is a pretty easy question to answer. The process of education is about understanding how to look at, and then interpret information. The more education you have, the higher your ability to process more, and sometime contradictory information.

The bible as literal truth simply doesnt stand up in the face of facts and science.

By Sonny boy

July 13, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

This statement clearly shows the lack of critical thinking that fundy’s have about the bible:

What we have in the Bible is an eyewitness account.

No we don’t..unless those eyewitnesses are alive today to testify we have nothing but conjecture and hearsay.

And the fact that some archeology is confirmed in the bible is meaningless. Referencing buildings, rivers and landscapes is not the same as stating that events happened that defy all scientific and logical reasoning. Just because Jericho or the Eurphrates river existed in biblical times does not prove that Lazarus rose from the dead.

And this statement:

I wish our society and educators were able to hear the other side of the story - and realize that it is actually more intellectually consistent to believe even the seemingly supernatural accounts, in a book that is the most thoroughly researched and proven document in history

And this statement is supported how? Why is it more intellectually consistent to believe in concepts that by there very nature cannot be critiqued by any intellectual process? We have no proof that Jesus even really existed…where does Shaunti pull this stuff from.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

I believe there is enough historical evidence to say that a person named Jesus did exist. What has always perplexed me is why none of the New Testament books were authored directly by him. The man obviously had a lot to say, but we have only second and third-hand accounts of his teachings to rely upon today. Somewhat unusual, considering that his “teachings” form the cornerstone of the most popular religion in the world.

Also, to give credit where it is due, I think Diane’s rebuttal was beautifully written and very compelling. Ditto for the response by “Thinking About It”.

By Mara

July 13, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

They have found the Homerian epics to be historically and archeologically accurate too, so should we believe that Zues really is the source of lightening or that Wisdom (Athena) really did spring fully grown from his head?

As for dismissing the idea that the Bible is the literal word of god…has anyone ever tried to translate text written in a foreign language? Very seldom do the subtext, the cultural references, or the idioms and syntax directly translate from one language to another. To think that a book 2,000 years old which has been translated and the translation then translated and then it gets translated…well, to think that each and every phrase ended up exactly as it was intended by the author (whomever you believe that was) is very, very unlikely.

Anyway, the Bible itself is an incomplete compilation of books and stories that were written decades and even centuries after the passing of the man called Jesus. While the places, and perhaps even the people, may be authentic, the story is unquestionably as fanciful as it is incomplete. One may as well believe the Icelandic Edda, or even Tolkeins’ Silmarillion.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Anyone who believes in the literal truth of the bible obviously has now read it critically. The first two chapters of Genesis contain conflicting accounts of the creation, in terms of what was created when, in what order, etc. The bible contains several other twice-told tales, often conflicting in detail.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Of course, I think it’s fair to say that the “eyewitness” accounts of Creation as told by “Scientists”—i.e. The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution—aren’t any more reliable than the stories of the Bible. They just use bigger words and invent numbers to try to back their fantastic claims.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

I’d be more likely to believe the bible to be divinely inspired if it contained (or even hinted at) eternal realities that the science of the ancients had not yet revealed, e.g. the earth circles the sun and not vice versa; there are other planets, solar systems and galaxies; all matter is made of atoms; organisms too small to see can cause disease; DNA contains the recipe for building an organism. Clearly, God knew all these things and more; some prophecies at least hinting at these things would cause intelligent folks to give more credence to the book.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

The Big Bang and Evolution are supported by huge amounts of evidence, data and measurements. Scientists are always refining these theories to get closer to the truth. If conflicting evidence comes to light, scientists will revise or discard the theories. Contrarywise, if conflicting evidence for anything in the bible comes to light, fundamentalists would NOT revise or discard their beliefs. How someone can be proud of believing something without evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence, is a mystery to me.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

the earth circles the sun and not vice versa

ahyes, you were doing well until you made that foolish statement. In the strictest sense, all we can say is that all motion is relative, since there is no fixed “origin point” in the Universe by which we can construct Universal “coordinate axes”. As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it.

All of the biblical references I’ve seen made to astronomy have all been corroborated by modern Physics. If you recall, the earth is described in the Bible as a sphere suspended in space held aloft by nothing.

By Sonny Boy

July 13, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

There are no writings, art relics, nor any other physical piece of evidence from the actual historical period (note: actual historical period…not two or three hundred years later) of Jesus that indicate that he existed as a single individual…although I would concede that such a person certainly could have existed…I just have some doubts.

As to the statement about evolution…no scientist has ever maintained that he or she has experienced or knows of an eyewitness account of the beginning of life on earth. The difference is that the claims and methods of scientist can actually be tested and thus proven or disproven. Until we can prove that it is physically possible to walk on water, change H2O into a fermented beverage, be dead for three days (with all of the accompanying tissue damage) and then function as a physical being once again, we cannot and should not believe that there is any reason to believe a biblical figure did just that..literally.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

EVERYONE who says he/she believes in the literal truth of the bible should strictly follow the precise dietary and other rules given directly to Moses by God: eat no pork; don’t wear garments made of mixed material such as cotton and wool; eat no shellfish; don’t mix meat and milk…etc. In short, all true believers should keep kosher. Why wouldn’t true believers like Pat Robertson be bound by such God-given rules? I’m not aware that God ever revoked them.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

The Big Bang and Evolution are supported by huge amounts of evidence, data and measurements.

That’s not true, ahyes. I think if you study these “theories” with the same level of criticism you apply to reading the Bible, you will see that both come up empty in explaining how in the heck we got here. Also, be careful in assuming that anyone who rejects the nonsense of Big Science is automatically a religious fundamentalist.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

The difference is that the claims and methods of scientist can actually be tested and thus proven or disproven. Until we can prove that it is physically possible to walk on water, change H2O into a fermented beverage, be dead for three days (with all of the accompanying tissue damage) and then function as a physical being once again, we cannot and should not believe that there is any reason to believe a biblical figure did just that..literally.

I’m guessing you’re going to need a pretty huge lab if you’re going to test out theories of the Creation of the Universe. Also, life has never been created from non-life in a lab, and never will. Your error here is in lumping all Scientific endeavors together. Cosmology is very different from the other “hard” Sciences like Physics.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

EVERYONE who says he/she believes in the literal truth of the bible should strictly follow the precise dietary and other rules given directly to Moses by God: eat no pork; don’t wear garments made of mixed material such as cotton and wool; eat no shellfish; don’t mix meat and milk…etc.

ahyes, your credibility continues to sink. Have you ever heard of the New Covenant?

By Mara

July 13, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Even IF one dismisses the “old” testament and sticks to the new…there should be NO rich christians because they all are supposed to give their riches to the poor. Their houses of worship would be plain and utilitarian…NOT crystal cathedrals with mega-screen televisions, state-of-the-art audio systems, air-conditioning, and seating for 10 thousand.

By lovelyliz

July 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

I remember when religious beliefs were a matter of faith that didn’t have to be proven. Now fundamentalists are attempting to use the Bible and their own version of science to prove that what they believe is absolute fact.

Of course, they conveniently forget that the Bible has been edited and certain books not included.

By lovelyliz

July 13, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

As far as the Bible being an eye witness account, I didn’t know that Adam & Eve knew how to write.

By GOB

July 13, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

I believe there is enough historical evidence to say that a person named Jesus did exist.

Yep, and I think he lives in Cancun.

I could also make the claim that there is enough historical evidence to say that Zeus did exsist. That in no way proves he was a greek god though. In fact, I believe he was a pro-wrestler in the 80’s.

By Anonymous

July 13, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Liz: It is ironic. They hate and denounce the evils of science, and yet they desperately want the credibility that comes from science’s repeated successes.

Stay tuned to this topic to see a similar canine wannabe in action, doing pretty much the same thing.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Why are more educated people less likely to believe the Bible is literally true? The less educated long for, and are more comfortable with, absolute answers: a particular act is either “right” or “wrong.” True believers denigrate secularists as practicing “relative morality.” Secularists believe that morality is, in fact, relative. If “Thou shall not kill” were absolute, how does our religious president justify all those he allowed to be executed in Texas? How does he justify the killing involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? An educated person understands that life is not black and white; many moral issues are gray and very complicated.

By Chilao

July 13, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Speaking of potential mis-translations, and it being JokeFriday, have you heard about the monk who spent months in the basement, pouring over the original versions of some earlier texts?

He came running up the stairs one day, all jumping for joy. The other monks gathered around and asked what he was so excited about.

He replied “It said CELEBRATE,CELEBRATE, not Celibate”.

I think most scientists can/do admit that The BigBang Theory(among other things) is exactly that, a THEORY.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

“ahyes, your credibility continues to sink. Have you ever heard of the New Covenant?”

Mutt, can you please cite me chapter and verse of the New Covenant in which Jesus (not Paul or someone else) relieves us from God’s dietary and other restrictions given directly to Moses? Please don’t give me something vague like, “I’ve come not to uphold the old law but to overturn it,” unless you take the position that ALL old testament laws (10 commandments, etc.) are overturned.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

I could also make the claim that there is enough historical evidence to say that Zeus did exsist. That in no way proves he was a greek god though. In fact, I believe he was a pro-wrestler in the 80’s.

GOB—I’ve made no claim for the special divinity of Jesus, just am noting that his attributed “teachings” form the basis of the world’s most popular religion. As such, questions regarding his existence are still interesting.

They hate and denounce the evils of science, and yet they desperately want the credibility that comes from science’s repeated successes.

Anonymous—I don’t believe science is evil. It is a tool which can be used or misused, just like religion.

True believers denigrate secularists as practicing “relative morality.” Secularists believe that morality is, in fact, relative.

ahyes—there are essentially three ways of determining “right” action from “wrong” action. In a nut-shell, they are : (1) Duty bound ethics, which is the basis of religious morality. In other words, we have a duty to follow God’s commandments to the best of our ability.

(2) Utilitarianism, in which the “right” course of action is the one which produces the “best” outcome for the greatest number of people.

(3) Virtue-based ethics, which is based on the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia—true happiness—which can only result from a well-lived life. This way of thinking is predicated upon the idea of Natural Law.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Mutt, can you please cite me chapter and verse of the New Covenant in which Jesus (not Paul or someone else) relieves us from God’s dietary and other restrictions given directly to Moses?

ahyes—now you’re imposing additional restrictions not stated in your original assertion that “ANYONE who believes in the literal truth of the bible….”. The ideas of the New Covenant are mostly contained in 2Corinthians and Hebrews and aren’t direct commandments from Jesus. I answered your question within the framework in which you proposed it. If you follow the thread of the various “covenants” stated in the Bible, you will see that the various diet restrictions were changed periodically, so that no one set of dietary restrictions should be considered more holy than a previous set, IMO. In the original scheme, we were supposed to have been created as vegetarians.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Yes, indeed, The Big Bang is(only)a Theory; a theory that currently explains our observations, measurements and experiments better than any competing theory or explanation. The same is true for the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of electromagnetism …etc. All such theories have been repeatedly tested against what they predict will happen or be observed under certain circumstances. The competing theory that “god did it via supernatural powers” is inherently untestable, because it makes no predictions: whatever god chooses to do next does not have to accord with any rule or formula.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Back to the morality discussion: Old Testament Law is essentially duty-based. Specific commandments are laid out and we are expected to follow them. Of course, any such “black and white” rule-based system immediately leads to inconsistencies, as Kurt Godel proved via his Incompleteness Theorem. Jesus recognized this, and thus made a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The “spirit of the law” is another way of describing virtue-based ethics. In other words, helping a neighbor in need on the Sabbath is more virtuous than strictly observing the commandments to not work on the Sabbath.

At no point does Jesus recommend the idea of utilitarianism, which is the basis of “relativistic morality” as espoused by existentialists. Under utilitarianism, for example, it makes a lot of sense to publicly execute innocent people if by doing so it prevents everyone else from doing wrong. This creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people, right? I believe Saddam Hussein employed a system like that in Iraq in which he justified torture based on the fact that it promoted “social stability”.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

All such theories have been repeatedly tested against what they predict will happen or be observed under certain circumstances. The competing theory that “god did it via supernatural powers” is inherently untestable, because it makes no predictions: whatever god chooses to do next does not have to accord with any rule or formula.

Once again you are falling into the trap of lumping together all Scientific theories as being on equal footing in terms of proof. Gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism are repeatable events for which we can invent an intelligent model for. The Creation of the Universe is not a repeatable event, so the standards of “proof” are far different.

Also, you’re making a big mistake to say that there are only two alternatives in deciding cosmology. Rejection of the Big Bang doesn’t equate with acceptance of the Biblical story of Creation.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Mutt- Corinthians2 and the book of Hebrews are attributed to have been written by Paul and/or a member of the Pauline sect. Did Paul have the authority to overturn laws given directly to Moses by god? If so, where did he come by such authority? If, as you say, the god-given laws were changed periodically, who changed them, and under what authority? Are not the last ones given by god himself binding unless overturned by proper authority? Does “The New Covenant” speak explicitly to these god-given laws, or is it simply someone’s interpretation?

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

; a theory that currently explains our observations, measurements and experiments better than any competing theory or explanation

I’m calling your bluff, ahyes. I don’t think you really understand the nuts and bolts of the Physics equations used to describe The Big Bang. The bottom line is that there are gaps in the explanation that can’t be filled in in any credible way. For starters, according to the equations, 90% of the “mass” of the Universe is presently unaccounted for, and is thus called “dark matter”. Call me a fool, but I think any theory which can’t account for 90% of the supposed matter in the Universe isn’t telling me much.

Two technical questions for you as well: In the original “singularity” proposed by the Big Bangers, the gravity is so great that matter could only exist as “quarks” and “leptons”. Immediately following the Bang, how exactly do all of the quarks pair up together perfectly while streaming outward at incredible speeds in a perfect one-to-one pairing to form hydrogen? Then, while traveling at incredible speeds, how did all the hydrogen atoms get together. Supposedly “rotational eddies’ are formed via gravity, but no one seems to understand the mechanism.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Yes, you’re right that the creation of the universe is not a repeatable event. However, IF the universe WERE created via The Big Bang, then, certain other astrophysical events would be expected to occur. The fact that most, if not all of them do occur as predicted makes the BB theory our current best explanation of the event, UNLESS you’re happy with the alternative theory that “God poofed the universe into existence.”

By The Cost

July 13, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

There they go again playing all of you like dime-store fiddles. All they have to do is bring up a topic with a hot-button like religion and all of you will be at each other’s throats. Just wanted you to know how foolish you sound.

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Does “The New Covenant” speak explicitly to these god-given laws, or is it simply someone’s interpretation?

ahyes—you must be confusing me with a Bible literalist. I think the Bible is a wonderful source of inspiration and understanding, but there’s nothing literal about it. I don’t view God as an anthropomorphic being who can “dictate” commandments. Careful with your assumptions.

By ahyes nowisee

July 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Neither I, nor any of the world’s foremost physicists and cosmologists, have answers definitive enough to formulate an air-tight theory that explains the origin of the universe. I’m simply saying that the Big Bang Theory, with all its warts, seems more intellectually satisfying to me than the competing theory that “god poofed the universe into existence.”

By One Day

July 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

“One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord”

By Mutt

July 13, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

I’m simply saying that the Big Bang Theory, with all its warts, seems more intellectually satisfying to me than the competing theory that “god poofed the universe into existence.

Finally, an honest statement. Maybe there is some hope for you after all. Can you see how others (not me) are more satisfied with the Big Daddy In the Sky Theory? When speaking of cosmology, it’s always more honest to speak in terms of “intellectual satisfaction” than “truthfulness”. Understand my point?

By Reason

July 13, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

It’s from the heart and not the head, that’s why it’s so hard for the professional students to understand. Plus if you do nothing but sit around all day you have plenty of time to come up with half-baked “philisophical” ideals.

By RamblinLonghorn

July 13, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

How can you say the Bible is the most researched and proven book in history? The bible is true because Jericho was a real place? I guess every word of the Illiad is true because Troy was a real place. I should probably sacrifice a goat to Zeus and beg him for some rain (I’m sure Sonny would approve).

The fact is, many of the Bible’s stories historical truths. No one doubts that the Romans controlled Jerusalem in the the late BCE and early CE. However, I have every doubt that there was a garden 6000 years ago where humans were created. Or that shortly thereafter, God pushed a reset button and flooded the world. However if you have some concrete, testable, and reproducible evidence, I’m open to it.

By Erin

July 15, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

More educated people — educated by “liberal thinkers” rather than indoctrinated Bible school teachers, that is — learn critical thinking. And critical thinking does not mix with Biblical literalism.

Critical thinking also leads to not making credulous, illogical and completely unsubstantiated statements in newspaper columns.

By ATMaker

July 15, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

I am suprised that in all of this hi-level discussion, no one has yet commented on the absence of one-eyed or one-handed Christians. Jesus said if your eye or your hand causes you to sin,pluck it out or cut it off! It is better to enter into life maimed than to be whole!! i.e. if you are a senator and your eye causes you to desire a lady other than your wife, pluck it out!!! if your hand causes you to take home some extra notepads and a few extra pens form work, cut it off!! I haven”t seen many on-eyed or one-handed literalists walking around!!!

By Yeah Right.

July 15, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Gag! Leave it to Shaunti to drag politics into the issue. Once again it’s the “liberals” that are the root cause of the problem. Well, if being a liberal means that my critical thinking skills are intact, then by all means brand me a liberal. If being a good Christian conservative means that I must reject science (unless it suits my needs, of course), then count me out.

If you want some insight into what has motivated Shaunti’s response, just read her bio.

By candide

July 15, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Four hundred years of biblical scholarship, starting with Benedict Spinoza, have revealed the Bible to be a collection of writings got up and rewritten for a variety of political, social, dynastic, and religious reasons which have nothing to do with truth. God is not the author. Much of the supposed history of the Old Testament is fraudulent: there is no evidence of an Exodus, of a magnificent Solomonic kingdom. As for the New Testament, the Gospels are more like novels about Jesus than biographies. Their claims are not substantiated by any other evidence. Paul’s Letters show that he was not at all interested in the real Jesus, only in a Cosmic Man he identified with Jesus, a myth.

Education leads one to understand some of these things. That is why church-related colleges do not provide a real education.

By Shannon, M.Div.

July 15, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I’m still a Christian. I’ve got two advanced degrees in theology, and my faith in Jesus is the cornerstone of my life. Do I believe, however, that Christians have a lock on truth? No. The more educated one is, the more one is exposed to other religions which often teach quite similar morality. One has to come to grips with one’s beliefs when one meets honest and inspiring people of other faiths—people who were reared to honor different religions and who do so faithfully. It doesn’t threaten my faith in Jesus to look at other faiths and see the beauty in them. That was, I think, the start of my ascent from a simplistic faith.

It was easy to think of faith as assent to a set of rational propositions, but it wasn’t very deep. When the propositions were threatened (and trust me, the more you look into the gospels and see minor contradictions—just to name one problem with inerrancy), the faith was threatened too. That’s dangerous and sad! I used to hear the “house of cards” theory—if you pull one card out of faith, the whole house tumbles down. It ain’t so.

Trust me, I wasn’t “indoctrinated” in college. I was indoctrinated in childhood, by fundamentalists who told me to believe first and ask questions never. College says that you need to test faith. Kind of like the Bible… test the spirits. When you test fundamentalism, it doesn’t gel with reality. Finally… the whole notion of “inerrancy” came about in the 1800s! Augustine would’ve been completely horrified that anyone thought the world was created in six days.

Yeah, that probably blew somebody’s mind. It’s true, though.

By observer

July 15, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

While you all are flexing your IQ’s did any of you geniuses actually read the BIO of Shuanti ? “yeah Right” is on the right track here. She has a Masters Degree from Harvard in economics and a thriving business selling morality fiction. The real debate should be whether a person can have a legitimate position when self interest is involved. Most evangelists have already shown the falicy of this. How could any thinking person imagine the Bible was not twisted and spun to suit the power structure of the times? Just look at all the different versions and interpretations we have at Amazon. You might as well buy one of Shaunti’s books “‘message fiction,’ applying her analysis and research skills to weaving truth-filled stories.” (sounds like the Bible?) and start a new religion.

By Craigart14

July 15, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

I don’t recall anyone mentioning the Bible to me at all in college—except in discussing literary references to it—or graduate school. When I began studying World Literature, I realized all by my lonesome that it can’t be literally true. In the very first book, we are given two contradictory accounts of creation. There are a number of differences between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2, but suffice it to say that in Gen. 1, God creates mankind “male and female he created them” last, while in Gen. 2, he creates Adam, then the animals, and then, seemingly as an afterthought, Eve. Both versions cannot be true. In the same book, Noah is told to take one pair of every creature into the ark, but a few lines later, he is instructed to take seven pairs of birds and seven pairs of ritually clean animals, but only one pair of unclean animals. The two sets of instructions disagree. Also, the Lord hasn’t yet explained what ritually clean animals are, so it’s not clear what Noah was to make of these instructions. Of course, the flood story in Genesis is an adaptation of the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a much older work of literature. Also, in the New Testament, Judas Iscariot dies twice, once by hanging himself (after flinging the thirty pieces of silver at the priests in the temple), and once by falling down and splitting open so “his entrails gushed out” (after using the money to buy a field). The four gospels disagree on many of the details of Jesus’ life and death, and in the book of Revelation, John of Patmos describes walking past a fallen star, even though any of the stars in the galaxy is huge enough to pulverize the earth. (The Bible’s writers believed that the earth was flat, that the sky was a solid dome, and the that sun and moon rose and set by entering and leaving through doors in the base of the dome.)

There are dozens—perhaps hundreds—of such mistakes and contradictions in the Bible. As early as 1708, John Mill established, by comparing all the manuscripts of the Bible he could locate, that there were thirty thousand variants (places in the text where translations disagreed with each other) in the New Testament. Whatever else a reasonable person might conclude, one cannot conclude that the Bible is literally true. Once you realize that it does contain mistakes and contradictions, you are faced with the necessity of choosing which parts you accept as true and which parts are false.

As for Dr. Bryant Wood, he is a self-described “creationist archaeologist.” Real archaeologists look for evidence, then draw conclusions based on that evidence using long-established principles of logic. The “creationist archaeologist,” on the other hand, has already drawn his conclusion and searches for (or fabricates, in many cases) evidence to support it. Dr. Wood’s work on Jericho has already been refuted.

By candide

July 16, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

The destruction of the public school system via integration and white flight has made church-related schools more important. They dispense anti-scientific propaganda and spiritualistic nonsense. Our population will get more and more stupid and bible-thumped.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Mutt,

ahyes, you were doing well until you made that foolish statement. In the strictest sense, all we can say is that all motion is relative, since there is no fixed “origin point” in the Universe by which we can construct Universal “coordinate axes”. As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it.

I have heard you make this statement a number of times now. I agree that if you apply a wobble to the universe as a whole the earth, from an outside POV, could be considered to be still. I find it moot though, since the testibility of that notion is even more extreme than big bang theories.

My point in bringing it up is that you use this point to be extremely condescending and as an attack, which is very petty.

Bloggers, humans love “eyewitness accounts” but they are actually the MOST unrealiable of all evidences.

By HeeHaw

July 16, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

since there is no fixed “origin point” in the Universe by which we can construct Universal “coordinate axes”. As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it.

Dog’s version of *What is the meaning of IS?

He must be one of the stationary relativist?

By RectilinearPropagation

July 16, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

I don’t recall anyone mentioning the Bible to me at all in college—except in discussing literary references to it—or graduate school.

Like Craigart14, I almost never heard references to the Bible in college except for in my Introduction to Religion class. Even then there was no discussion over what we (or people in general) should believe.

For whatever reason this occurs, is it really a “problem”? If what the study cited by Diane says is true being more educated also makes you more likely to attend a house of worship so it isn’t like higer education is turning people into atheists.

By Jester

July 16, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

You may be an ambassador to England or France, You may like to gamble, you might like to dance, You may be the heavyweight champion of the world, You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

You might be a rock ‘n’ roll addict prancing on the stage, You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage, You may be a business man or some high degree thief, They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk, You may be the head of some big TV network, You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame, You may be living in another country under another name

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home, You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome, You might own guns and you might even own tanks, You might be somebody’s landlord, you might even own banks

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride, You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side, You may be workin’ in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair, You may be somebody’s mistress, may be somebody’s heir

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk, Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk, You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread, You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy, You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy, You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray, You may call me anything but no matter what you say

You’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

By Archie

July 16, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

There are many reasons why educated people are less likely to believe in the literal interpretion of the bible and one of those does have to do with who teaches classes in college. I was told that since I was at the university of sc that it was an unacceptable to believe in the bible literally because the university itself is a place where science and logic are taught. My religion professor explained away several different stories and he said religion class was not a place where one could talk about what God did for them. Educated people are taught to not believe in the bible literally,plain and simple, and they are given explanations as to why certain things could not happened the way the Bible says literally. No problem with science but I simply don’t believe mankind knows all and can prove or even can come up with a valid theory for all things. I think Diane makes a good point that there are some things that are mysterious and there are multiple truths and I think educated people know this that also another reason why educated believe less in the literal interpretation of the bible. Finally,some folk are just plain atheist.

By lozen

July 16, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

By the time I reached college I’d already decided the bible was just the creation myths and folklore of one small group of people. I was interested in Egypt, Greece, and native american cultures at a very young age. I realized how many different creation stories have existed in other civilizations. The Egyptians had their folklore and creation myth, the Greeks had theirs, the Chinese had theirs. There is just as much proof for Zeus, Isis, Mithras, Shiva, as there is for Yahweh and Jesus. In other words, there is no proof for any of these gods. They were all created by the human need for security and protection in a world full of things that are dangerous to frail human existence, and as a source of comfort when we lose the people we love.

The Cherokee creation story tells of a water beatle searching until she dives to the bottom of the ocean and finds mud, which she brings in a ball to the surface. That mud then becomes the earth. Then a buzzard flies low over the land and his wings create the mountains and valleys. Makes just as much sense as the Eden myth.

By Umbrella

July 16, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

An open-minded conversation:

Bill: Two plus two is five.

Nancy: You know you are absolutely right.

Paul: Two plus two is eight.

Nancy: You know you are absolutely right.

Amy: Two plus two is two.

Nancy: You know you are absolutely right.

Phil: Two plus two is eleven.

Nancy: You know you are absolutely right.

There are not multiple truths. Those of you who think there are must be living in a state of constant confusion.

YOU GOTTA STAND FOR SOMETHING OR YOU’LL FALL FOR ANYTHING

By Troglodyke

July 16, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

I remember when religious beliefs were a matter of faith that didn’t have to be proven. Now fundamentalists are attempting to use the Bible and their own version of science to prove that what they believe is absolute fact.

Fundies are scared. They see their “truths” being put to the test daily, and they see more and more enlightened people rejecting their silly foolishness, and they are grasping for a toehold in a world that no longer, for the most part, needs the snake oil they are selling.

They strive to “prove” their ridiculous notions at every turn because more and more of us are demanding it of them. Spouting scripture is OK if you are doing it in a benign way, but with the rise of the Religious Reich and the power it has been given in our political system of late, fundies are now able to have a say in the most important matters affecting the citizenry. Therefore, they MUST be held accountable now for what they say and do. You can spout religious BS all you like as long as it doesn’t affect me, but when you start to pass laws that affect my health and happiness, and start taking away my rights, you better have some proof.

And they have NONE. All they have is a large population of sheeple who follow them, and that flock is, thankfully, dwindling on a daily basis. Every time a prominent fundy opens his mouth; every time Fred Phelps and his inbred family make it on the news; every time some holier-than-thou Xtian finds himself in a self-created moral pickle, sheeple turn away to rational thought, and their eyes are opened.

I have always said that it is the most vocal Christianists that are creating agnostics and atheists every day. We don’t need to recruit anyone—the Xtians do it for us! When people finally see how hypocritical and stupid their beliefs are, they seek REAL truth. All one has to do is read the bible with a grain of thought, and one would admit it is rubbish.

And as for this flotsam: One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord

All I have to say is, what is taking so long? If this crap is true, why has it not already happened?

You people kill me. If you want to be mindless and silly in your thinking, so be it. But please stay home on election day; please stay off the PTAs of the local schools; please send your children to Xtian schools so my kids don’t have to hear them preaching; please butt out of everyone else’s business; and try living your lives as if you really believed the crap you spout.

This week’s question is just begging the obvious.

By Anonymous

July 16, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Archie: In college, students are (ideally) taught to think for themselves, ask reasonable questions, and apply logic and the rules of evidence to claims.

If the Bible can’t withstand such scrutiny… well, whose fault is that? Chalking it up to “atheist brainwashing” is a lazy excuse.

The Bible works just fine as a source of spiritual inspiration—but as a science and history book, it’s a miserable failure. It’s the attempt to turn it into something it isn’t—“literal truth”—that’s responsible for the loss of faith.

By Reason

July 16, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

WHY ARE SO CALLED OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE NOT OPEN TO CHRISTIANITY? (seems like they are closing their minds to one truth, sort of defeats the purpose of open-mindedness doesn’t it?)

By kimberly

July 16, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

If you believe there is only ONE GOD, then you are a monothesist. If you are a monotheist, then you believe there is only ONE GOD. Therefore: - Anyone, anywhere, who prays for any reason to what he or she believes is the Supreme Being or Creator of the Universe, is praying to that SAME ONE GOD, regardless of the name he or she uses to address this ONE GOD, history books this person grew up reading, or the culture and traditions he or she was indoctrinated into believing honors and respects this ONE GOD. If you think they’re praying to the “wrong” God, you’re contradicting your own belief in ONE GOD. - If you spend your time explaining to other people that you know all about this ONE GOD, and that their differing ideas are all wrong, then you presume a special relationship with this ONE GOD, and that all the other human beings who ever existed who read a different history book or used a different name for ONE GOD are all wrong. Boy, that’s a big assertion!!! Got any proof? I mean, besides your particular version of a history book?

Yes, I too believe there is ONE GOD. What I don’t believe is that tax-exempt groups of power-hungry men asking for tithes, demanding I read their history books, or telling me how to behave and vote, have any more special knowledge of the Mysterious and Divine that any other tiny, insignificant mortal among the tens of billions that have existed here before us. Blow your own trumpet all you want, fellas, but don’t expect me to jump in line and bang the drum for you.

By Anonymous

July 16, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Because open-minded doesn’t mean empty-headed.

There’s nothing actually wrong with Christianity as a spiritual path; but as an accurate description of physical law and history, it stinks.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

There are not multiple truths.

Working inside YOUR belief system here: The trinity is an example of multiple truths.

Watch what you say when the only purpose is to argue against a point because you might say anything - including falsities and lies.

By Archie

July 16, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

If the Bible can’t withstand such scrutiny… well, whose fault is that? Chalking it up to “atheist brainwashing” is a lazy excuse. Anonymous are you a young poster or someone without good reading skills? Nowhere did I say anything about atheist brainwashing.Archie: In college, students are (ideally) taught to think for themselves, ask reasonable questions, and apply logic and the rules of evidence to claims.

Also if you could read you would know I did go to college and I took religion classes as well as logic classes. The logic classes were called philosophy 101 and 102 back then. I do not understand the purpose of your statement since you are writing to someone that did finish college. I simply answered the topic question as we already know some believe in the bible and some don’t but that’s not the question. This discussion will turn into something stupid in a very short period of time although I think both Shanti and Diane did a good job creating a discussion. Shanti remarks about liberal professors is why I made my comment about my professors but I have no idea if he was liberal or conservative and I think Shanti buys into conservative talking points too much. My journalism professor made similar comments as my religion professor so was he liberal because also taught at an Hbcu? How does one know a liberal professor from a conservative professor? I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and my opinion of the bible did change after taking religion classes but I did not discard all belief in God. Let’s remember the topic quesion is not about whether it’s better to believe or not but why are educated people less likely to the Bible is literally true. I attempted to give just a few reasons to answer the topic question.

By Craig also

July 16, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

ATMaker yesterday hit on the dirty little truth of fundamentalism. No one, not the most loyal Southern Baptist, really takes the Bible literally. The Bible supports slavery, the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be executed, the Bible teaches that children who disrespect their parents should be executed, and yeah Jesus said that if your eye “offends” you, that you should pluck it out. Like ATM, I haven’t seen too many one eyed Christians. So when Shaunti wants us to accept the Bible literally, she really means literally in line with her specific interpretation.

By Anonymous

July 16, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Archie: Sorry, that “brainwashing” comment was directed to Shaunti and similar fundamentalist types, who hate higher education with a passion.

And they hate it precisely BECAUSE it enables people to ask questions, and they’ve turned their Bible into something that must be accepted as literal truth. A sad mistake, in my opinion, because that means when the reality is learned, the faith disappears like smoke. Which is a pretty shaky type of faith, isn’t it?

By lozen

July 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

Troglodyte, your 11:02 is so right. Someone said once, “The quickest way to convert a fundamentalist is to send them to theology school!” Craigalso is right. Not one fundamentalist takes the book in its entirety as literal truth for themselves. They always have a way around that …like the “new covenant” ya know?

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

have heard you make this statement a number of times now. I agree that if you apply a wobble to the universe as a whole the earth, from an outside POV, could be considered to be still. I find it moot though, since the testibility of that notion is even more extreme than big bang theories.

JokesOn—Here’s the point of “relative motion” if you’re interested: In order to measure the “motion” of an object, you have to construct or choose a reference frame which is not “in motion” itself if you hope to make statements that an object within that reference frame is “moving” in some absolute sense. Otherwise, you can only say that an object is in motion or not in motion relative to the given reference frame. That is to say, any reference frame you choose may “secretly” be in motion itself without the observer’s knowledge, which would invalidate any statements the observer has made about the absolute motion of the other objects.

And that’s the “truth” of the entire Universe—there is no frame of reference we can construct, whether considering the Earth to be motionless, the Sun to be motionless, the solar system to be motionless, the Milky Way galaxy to be motionless, etc. without introducing some “bias” in making statements about the “absolute” motion of objects within the chosen reference frame. The only truly “objective” frame of reference could only come from “outside” the Universe (as you suggested), but which is impossible if you define the Universe to mean the Totality, such that no frame of reference exists outside of the system. As such, we can never speak of “Absolute Motion” of objects in recognition that this would imply an “Absolutely Motionless” frame of reference, which doesn’t exist.

By Mara

July 16, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Yes, you’re right that the creation of the universe is not a repeatable event

Why not? Perhaps this universe is unique in composition, but that doesn’t mean that another universe could not come into being. If one accepts either of the explanations (the Big Bang or that the Big Spankin’ Daddy in the Sky “created” the universe), one would HAVE to accept that it could be re-created, i.e. “repeated”. Especially if one accepts the Mad Daddy explanation…after all, he’s (supposedly) already wiped out the population of the world once already and has in motion the plan to do so again…

lovelyliz, Troglodyke, and kimberly - very well said, all of you.

By MrRogers

July 16, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By lozen

July 16, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Anonymous, that is an excellent comment at 12:25 also. Religious totalitarians do hate learning and higher education. They can’t help it because they’ve been told yahweh hates it when you ask questions. he hates it when you use your mind. god wants you to be a good sheep and follow blindly and without question. If you aren’t a good sheep, god will kick you to the curb and you’ll burn forever, amen!

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

The greater point in understanding the true nature of motion isn’t really one about Physics, but more about human nature. To wit: The first widely “accepted” model of Universal motion was that of Ptolemy, which placed a motionless Earth at the center of the Universe (or at least the Solar System), and used calculations to predict the motion of the other planets. If you’ve seen pictures, it’s a very complicated model which utilized circles within circles called epicycles in order to account for the perceived “retrograde motion” of planets.

Well, along came Copernicus, who discovered that by choosing a different reference frame in which a motionless Sun is at the “center” of our solar system, the planetary motions could be modeled much more easily and gave the appearance of elliptical orbits when plotted on graph paper. In terms of easily modeling and predicting planetary motion, the Copernican model is thus more useful by far, and has become the model taught in schools.

The point to catch here is that in terms of scientific modeling, being more useful is very different from being more truthful. From the point of view of “relative motion”, both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are equivalent—they are just two different ways of accounting for the relative motion between the earth and Sun using different coordinate axes and choosing a different “fixed point” as the origin.

By Logic

July 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Q: What do you call an atheist funeral?

A: All dressed up and no place to go!

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

All of this would remain an arcane Physics discussion if it weren’t for the political involvement in endorsing one of these models over the other as representing the “truth” by first the Catholic Church, and later by Big Science—i.e. “corporate Science”, the folks who control the destiny of billions of dollars of public funds based on their own misguided standards of truth.

As it relates to this week’s discussion, it’s this: At some point in everyone’s life, we are faced with big questions about our own destinies, both during this lifetime and afterward (if there is an afterlife, that is). In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to construct some sort of “worldview” in which the basic processes of life we observe are put into a framework which “makes sense”, so that we can extrapolate in an attempt to answer the questions regarding our own personal destinies.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Dog,

I understand it perfectly.

But to apply your reasoning (was hoping you got it without this, for it is lugubrious) is taking a simple point, which should be “relivite motion” and not motionless, and applying it universally and incorrectly. (if applied correctly the earth would still be movingn around the sun)

First, you were stating that As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it.

If the earth was stationary, as you say is possible, then what force is it that causes the attraction of the sun to it in such a great way and keeping it in orbit? You would have to throw out what we clearly observe regarding gravity.

The other possibility would require spinning/wobbling the whole universe just to keep the earth at the center and “still.”

That is, a-hem, the tail wagging the dog.

And you would argue that notion even though you know it is one of the dumbest things presented on the blog. It out-performs chucks notion of dino-eggs on the ark.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

The point to catch here is that in terms of scientific modeling, being more useful is very different from being more truthful. From the point of view of “relative motion”, both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are equivalent—they are just two different ways of accounting for the relative motion between the earth and Sun using different coordinate axes and choosing a different “fixed point” as the origin.

The more you speak on this the more you sound like you do not know anything besides some number theory.

There is a very significant difference between the two - subjective and objective. Try launching and landing a space probe using both theories and it will be obvious which is closer to an objective truth.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

As for my condescension in beating some of these wannabe Scientists over the head with the “truth” of relative motion, it’s this: In seeking out a framework of Universal Truth by which our lives make sense, most of us are exposed to the Church model at an early age—the Mack-Daddy-In-The-Sky model. And for most of us, as our education and intelligence increase, we realize that accepting Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. as the “literal truth” is problematic. As such, it is normal to reject the Church model and look for other answers.

At first glance, Science seems to offer some real answers about the “greater truth” by offering models of the physical world which allow for very accurate predictions of the behavior of certain entities. The greatest strength of Science is the fact that the models are not static. As new information and greater understanding comes about, the models are frequently modified, and many old models rejected out-of-hand when a better explanation comes along. Due to such “progress”, it is possible to use inductive thinking and start to believe that with enough time and resources, these guys are going to have a handle on every aspect of “truth” one of these days.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

If the earth was stationary, as you say is possible, then what force is it that causes the attraction of the sun to it in such a great way and keeping it in orbit? You would have to throw out what we clearly observe regarding gravity.

JokesOn—I don’t want to get bogged down in Physics either, but think of this: It is commonly said that the moon revolves around the earth. The “greater truth” is that the two entities form a binary system in which both revolve around each other. It is mathematically possible to “graph” said binary motion with either a fixed earth or a fixed moon. Granted, the fixed moon graph appears “strange”, so that our human prejudice might “like” the fixed earth graph more, but they are mathematically equivalent. The usefulness of Ptolemy’s model is inescapable because it is the exact model that we observe here from Earth on a daily basis. We say “The Sun rises”, we don’t say “We’ve spun into the path of the Sun’s radiance” every morning.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

There is a very significant difference between the two - subjective and objective

You’re actually leading into my greatest point here, JokesOn. Mathematically speaking, every point of view in the Universe is equivalent. So, when we select a certain point of view, the criteria we use to select that point supercedes any mathematical equivalence. If you want to know how planetary motion “appears” to humans here on earth, you have to pick the earth as your origin point. To some hypothetical being “outside” of our solar system (one of Maxwell’s demons”), maybe they can “see” the planets revolving around the sun. We here on earth can never see it that way, except on paper. Yet, you demean choosing the Earth as a fixed point as being “subjective”, and glorify the viewpoint of one of Maxwell’s demons as being “objective”.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

Dog,

You are sidestepping here.

If you read back he did not argue that point. Your point was wrong and your new point is not totally correct: the current basis of science still conforms to just about all of past modern scientific theories.

You also have brought up existentialism again. I called you on your incorrect ideas on its basis of morality and you conceded that you really did not know much about the philosophy.

You keep trying to bring the conversations back to your idea of morality and god no different than fundamentalists. That coupled with “the world is out of step not I” notion gets tiring.

Why do I bother with jarring you? Because I do believe you have something important to offer, but only if your ego and addictive behavior gets out of the way.

By GOB

July 16, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Why dont you two exchange email addresses so you can flirt in private…

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—My only point is that Science, as useful as it is, is not the final arbiter of Truth the way that the Science Fundamentalists would like it to be. Creating paper models by which we can make accurate physical predictions is wonderful, when used in the right way. However, and I’m not sure how deep your grasp of pure mathematics is, there are often several ways of representing the same entity mathematically. On paper, one looks “clean” and is “useful”. The other looks “messy” and is not used. However, neither is more “truthful”, they are mathematically equivalent.

As for your claim that I am demanding folks to see things my way, that is the opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that all of us are stuck in our own perspectives, and that the best we can do is try to be a Maxwellian demon when trying to figure out the behavior of other people. But, if you notice, I said “try”, because true objectivity is not possible. The best we can do is share our visions of the Maxwellian demon, and make models based on inductive thinking. As new info and new understandings come about, we can “improve” our models. However, we should never lose sight, IMO, that Maxwell’s demons are hypothetical, that we can never be truly objective.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Dog,

I guess you really do not get it. Too bad.

Yet, you demean choosing the Earth as a fixed point as being “subjective”, and glorify the viewpoint of one of Maxwell’s demons as being “objective”.

A) if fixed the universe would have to acomidate it OR all the theories including gravity (although the work in practice).

B) Not glrifying, but am going with the one that makes the most sence on paper and practice.

Back to the point, you stated that it was just as valid to state that the earth is stationary which is total bs. It is not “just as valid” although it is (very very minutely) possible.

By Mara

July 16, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

GOB - Why dont you two exchange email addresses so you can flirt in private

LOL!! that’s assuming “they” aren’t using the same computer…

By GOB

July 16, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Mara - I was going to add something about that in my last post, but thought it took away from the joke. I put it at about a 70% chance that they are the same person.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

The biggest beef I have with the Big Science folks is in their insistence on a mechanistic, non-Divine world-view when in fact, their own discoveries through Quantum Mechanics suggests the opposite—that ultimately some sort of probabilities are involved at the least. Science will never be able to answer the miracle of “emergent properties”, i.e. how groups of “meaningless” atoms can self-organize into a dynamic, complex system like a cell. To do so would require the discovery of some intrinsic atomic property which could predict the destiny of each carbon atom, each hydrogen atom, etc. But, because all carbon atoms are “mathematically equivalent”, emergent properties can’t be explained within an atomic framework.

So for me, the search for truth has come full circle and includes seeking to understand religious truth, along with philosophical truth, mathematical truth, artistic truth, sports truth, etc. Everyone is on their own journey. All of the answers aren’t contained by one discipline, as the Science wannabes would like to believe.

By NetBanker

July 16, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

I’m guessing you’re going to need a pretty huge lab if you’re going to test out theories of the Creation of the Universe. I don’t know about that Dog…The planetary construction facility used by the mice and documented by Douglas Adams didn’t seem to have been all that grand in scale.

What has always perplexed me is why none of the New Testament books were authored directly by him. The man obviously had a lot to say, but we have only second and third-hand accounts of his teachings to rely upon today. Somewhat unusual, considering that his “teachings” form the cornerstone of the most popular religion in the world. That is an excellent point!! I’ve never really thought about it, but will be asking that question of my very religious and extremely well-educated parents.

8UNLESS you’re happy with the alternative theory that “God poofed the universe into existence.”* Actually God poofing things into existence is a hypothesis rather than a theory. Sadly, until God decides to participate in testing it will remain a hypothesis since one can actually test a theory.

Ironically, the intelligencia’s increasing distrust of the Bible coincides with ever-more- significant archaeological and geological findings that consistently support rather than disprove its authenticity - even including its depiction of certain events usually derided as fable. For example, Dr. Bryant Wood, an archeologist, mechanical engineer and Director of Associates of Biblical Research, gained international acclaim via findings that correctly identified the age of the ancient city of Jericho and how it was destroyed - which precisely matched the seemingly mythological biblical accounts. This is where Shaunti’s argument completely falls apart for me. Any archeological and geological finds don’t prove the correctness of the Bible as to WHY something happened even as they may prove that something DID happen or exist. That mud brick walls fell isn’t in dispute, but did the Jews praying and circling of the city actually cause this to happen? No amount of archeological or geological study will actually prove that.

I also completely disagree with her ascertion that “our culture is led and populated by those who have had Biblical skepticism drummed into them by humanistic college professors.” My college was founded by the Church of the Brethren (which is only two revisions away from the Amish) and wouldn’t exactly have been a place to drum Biblical skepticism into anyone’s head. It was during Relgion classes (required to earn a degree regardless of BA or BS) that my earlier questioning of biblical ‘truths’ gained clarity. I started questioning Christian religious teaching waaaay back in late elementary to early middle school which was long before my interactions with college professors or even exposure to people who weren’t either Catholic or Protestant (pick a flavor).

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Why dont you two exchange email addresses so you can flirt in private…

Jealous huh;)

Seeing as you have not posted since the 13th, your only point is to be an a$$. Very well acomplished;)

Wipe your nose, the snottiness is permeating your character.

By Haikon

July 16, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

but only if your ego and addictive behavior gets out of the way.

fat chance there, huh? (and it is not even Friday)

By Anonymous

July 16, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

When has anyone made ANY of those claims that Mutt is raving about? He’s arguing with voices in his own head, as far as I can tell.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Back to the point, you stated that it was just as valid to state that the earth is stationary which is total bs. It is not “just as valid” although it is (very very minutely) possible.

To be precise, I’m saying that the Earth is involved in relative motion with every other object in the Universe, and every other object in the Universe is in relative motion with every other object on the Universe. To “map” said relative motion, you have to pick a frame of reference by which to “measure” said motion. Which frame of reference which is chosen, from a standpoint of mathematical modeling, is arbitrary. Have you ever heard of Projective Geometry? It is the type of mathematics which allows us to create “depth” in a flat drawing. The basis of Projective Geometry is that parallel lines do meet, very differently from “normal” Euclidian Geometry. Where do parallel lines meet? At the point, or line of “infinity”. Kind of like when you look at railroad tracks, they gradually converge and meet at a point “at the horizon”.

So, do parallel line meet, or not? Which is the “truth”? Well, it appears that two “truths” are possible, depending on which set of postulates you start with. In a practical way, both types of Geometry are “found” in the world, so there is a place for both “truths”.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

I’m guessing you’re going to need a pretty huge lab if you’re going to test out theories of the Creation of the Universe.

And do not forget about the h-collider that may be able to shed more light on the subject including dark matter. Just pointing out that there is no absolute boundaries on testing, only current ones.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

I put it at about a 70% chance that they are the same person.

GOB—I thought you were a little smarter than that, being a Teaching Company patron like myself. At the minimum, I would have to be a true genius to create the two, completely different writing styles. Even his emoticons are different from mine.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

When has anyone made ANY of those claims that Mutt is raving about?

He is raving about them because he refuses to own up the fact that he has made 2-3 really dumb and insulting comments.

fat chance there, huh? (and it is not even Friday)

Yes. Come friday and he will promise us the world again.

By Clinton

July 16, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

What exactly do you mean, by “IS”?

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

To be precise, I’m saying that the Earth

That is what you are saying NOW, which I already understand and find no purpose in rehashing.

To refresh your memory what you said was: As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

Just pointing out that there is no absolute boundaries on testing, only current ones.

That is not my understanding of truth, JokesOn. At the minimum, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can’t simultaneously “know” the “position” and the “velocity” of an atom. This is not an experimental limitation based on the inaccuracies of our current testing equipment, but points to a deeper sort of “immeasurability” based on the actual properties of matter itself. Like I keep saying, in the “normal” worldview which we perceive via Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidian Geometry, matter is, at least theoretically, subject to deterministic laws. Modern Physics disputes that view.

I’m definitely no expert in existentialism, but I believe it is predicated upon a mechanistic, fatalistic worldview which denies the Divine. Where Divinity fits into the picture for me is that, despite all the various possible “quantum states”, types of “Big Bangs”, etc., we somehow have landed in a perfectly integrated world. I agree with Einstein when he expressed disbelief that randomness can ever lead to order. “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe”. What form is this God? I don’t have “the answer”, but have to conclude that matter itself is Divine, that the two views presented by Big Religion (separate God) and Big Science (no God) are both incomplete on their own.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Dog,

GOB—I thought you were a little smarter than that, being a Teaching Company patron like myself. At the minimum, I would have to be a true genius to create the two, completely different writing styles. Even his emoticons are different from mine.

We are back to agreeing on something;)

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

I’m definitely no expert in existentialism, but I believe it is predicated upon a mechanistic, fatalistic worldview which denies the Divine.

The first existentialists were christain. Only until much later than kierkegaard do you get into the atheist version of the philosophy and that still incorporates the divine in most cases, although by different names.

At the minimum, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can’t simultaneously “know” the “position” and the “velocity” of an atom.

Yes, “of an atom” since our current method disrupts its course. Lets say, for exmaple only, that over time dark matter is found and could be used to measure the path of sub-atomic particles becuase of the disturbance in it? You are only stating one of the CURRENT absolutes.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

All I’m really saying is this: In the human realm of existence, each person is stuck with their own perspective. Call that “selfish” or “subjective”, but that is the mathematical truth of the situation. Through education, it is possible to “see things from other perspectives”, which is generally a good thing. Through the sharing of our individual revelations, it is possible to form a common consensus of what the “objective world” must be like. As long as these common revelations continue to be useful, we inductively believe the models to be “true”. However, as the history of Science shows, periodically these fundamental models are tossed out in favor of new models. I have every reason to believe that our current way of viewing the world will be tossed out as well one day.

Having said that, I do support the ideal of an objective reality, but believe that we will forever be removed from it for various reasons. As such, I don’t support any system of morality which throws “objectivity” out the window entirely, like the “If it feels good, do it” movement here in the US throughout the 1970s. But at the same time, i also automatically reject any system in which absolute certainty of the conclusions is part of the system—like Big Religion and Big Science.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

We are back to agreeing on something;)

Cool, you’d be the last guy I’d want to duke it out with down at L5P. ; > }

By candide

July 16, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

If someone tells you to read the bible, take out your gun and use it.

By Restating the Obvious

July 16, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

I reject the “if it feels good do it” code of ammorality that has ruined our society. People should not do that. Especially women, because then they’ll know the difference between what feels good and what doesn’t. That does not bode well for me! But if it feels good, yeah, I do it. Hey, it’s different when I do it! It’s not the same thing as when you do it. Sl-ut.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

All I’m really saying is this

And what your NOT saying is that you were wrong to say a stationary earth is just as correct as well as using it as a justification to be an a$$ to the guy.

Many times what a person is not saying is more important.

I have every reason to believe that our current way of viewing the world will be tossed out as well one day. Back to my premise of no absolute obstacles as well…

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Cool, you’d be the last guy I’d want to duke it out with down at L5P. ; > }

Don’t bring pornographic insults that include children into an argument and physical violence will never be an option for me. There are boundaries to insults and I think that is an acceptable one.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

So that my analysis isn’t all just hot air, I’d like to show you, JokesOn, how I believe each of these three world-views leads to a different choice of morality.

(1) For those who settle upon a world-view in which there is a purposeful Creator who remains involved in our individual lives, right conduct simply becomes a matter of following the dictates or commandments of this Creator. For those who believe in a literal Bible, the process is fairly simple—just look up the answer in the Bible. For those who believe in a personal God, but not a literal Bible, determining God’s Will is more problematic, but ultimately is based on “pleasing the Creator”.

(2) For those who reject a personal God, and settle on a mechanistic, fatalistic, deterministic world-view in which every viewpoint is equal, right conduct is a matter of deciding “the best outcome for the greatest number of people”. IMO, this is the most dangerous system of ethics, because it is possible to justify ANY action as having some greater good. E.g. Eminent domain laws which take away rightfully purchased property for the “greater good”. This form of ethics is the basis of both Communism and Socialism.

(3) For those who believe in a purposeful existence, but who reject the idea of a personal God, virtue-based ethics is the result. I.e. we decide our course of actions based on an amalgamation of principles. This type of ethics has pitfalls as well in that determining the right course of action isn’t always as simple as looking up the appropriate commandment, but is light years ahead of Utilitarianism in terms of human dignity.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

And what your NOT saying is that you were wrong to say a stationary earth is just as correct as well as using it as a justification to be an a$$ to the guy.

Please note my amplification above. The only true statement about motion that can be made is that every object in the Universe is moving relative to every other object. As such, no object is “stationary”. However, since we are forced to choose a frame of reference in order to model the perceived motion, we are forced to artificially, or arbitrarily, declare a certain point to be motionless. Furthermore, because we are free to choose any fixed point around which to construct our coordinate axes, it is “correct” to say that every point in the Universe could be considered “fixed”. You follow? The conclusion is that every point in the Universe is both “fixed” and motionless, or “in motion” depending upon your selection of reference frames. It’s a dual truth, and depends only upon the “subjective” selection of a frame of reference by a particular observer.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

So that my analysis isn’t all just hot air, I’d like to show you, JokesOn, how I believe each of these three world-views leads to a different choice of morality.

I do not think it is hot air and do appreciate your pov. The problem I do have is that it is purely (or near-so) theoretical and cannot be applied. Most people, often times including you, use it to invalidate existing practices, and that specifically does not impress me.

By NetBanker

July 16, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

At the minimum, I would have to be a true genius to create the two, completely different writing styles. You could have multiple personalities ;)

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

The problem I do have is that it is purely (or near-so) theoretical and cannot be applied. Most people, often times including you, use it to invalidate existing practices, and that specifically does not impress me.

It may just be my ego talking, but if you think about my connection of basic world-views to systems of morality, I see value, if only in understanding how people like chuck come up with their ideas about right conduct. It’s easy to mock him and say that the Bible isn’t literal, but the world-view upon which he predicates his ethics can’t be so easily disproven, so we have to accept his point of view as being his choice.

In the same way, I am suspicious of Utilitiarianism, because it can be used to justify any horrible action, like torture, as long as a good argument can be constructed that somehow it is for the greater good.

In the end, I believe Virtue-based ethics makes the most sense, and then worked backwards to see what kind of world-view it was based upon. What I found is this world-view (dual truth) seems to be compatible with both good science and good theology.

Now whether understanding the basis of good behavior automatically helps someone be a better person, I don’t know. For me, when I feel good and my chemistry is good, I’m a good person overall. When I don’t feel well, the ethics go out the window sometimes.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Ok.

So, you find each of these equally acceptable?

A) the sun revolves the earth which is stationary

B) the earth revolves the sun which is stationary

C) they revolve each other (binary)

I find it incredible that the universe would have the exact rotation and wobble to offset the motion of the earth around the sun and therefore not equal with the other possibilities.

I find no use in going so far out just to invalidate an observation reality that is easily put into practice.

I bet that if you think about it for a bit you will see that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, for to keep the obvious laws of gravity involved you would have to create a more complex system that changes motion equal to earths shift and govern it from the outside. Which means that from at any place IN the universe the earth is revolving the sun, like how we can detect planets by other suns wobble. That is a lot of extra work for a god or nature, whichever is your desired perspective, and insults both.

By Mutt

July 16, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

You could have multiple personalities ;)

Well, that’s no secret, NetB. At least, I never get lonely. ; > }

JokesOn—I’m going to call you on your challenge to me. Yes, I certainly often use Science to discredit the atheists, to invalidate existing practices. However, at the same time, I do offer an alternative view to both atheism and belief in an anthropomorphic Creator who remains personally involved in our lives. That alternative is the view that matter has Divine properties, that matter itself is Divine. In return, I don’t recall you ever going out on a limb and giving us your own personal TOE—Theory of Everything. You’re a smart guy, I’m interested in hearing how you put all the various pieces together to form a coherent world-view.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

You could have multiple personalities ;)

With MPSD the personalities are vastly different since they each serve a different purpose: strong/weak and etc. Dog and I are alike in a number of ways which throws that theory out the window.

It may just be my ego talking, but if you think about my connection of basic world-views to systems of morality, I see value, if only in understanding how people like chuck come up with their ideas about right conduct.

I did not say “no value” but do not hear you advocating anything that can be applied.

Just like the many meetings we have been to where people sink every idea without bringing one up. Sinking ships is easy, raising them not so much. So dis’ing a tool someone uses to raise a ship, although slowly, without providing a new one is destructive/immoral behavior.

By Peter

July 16, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

To bring multiple tribes together to form a more civilized and structured society, Moses was (supposedly) sent tablets from God. The Covenants and 10 Commandments established a basis of understanding and very simple ways to improve relationships with a governing set of rules. The bible developed as a series of stories, anecdotes, parables and events to further improve and describe good and bad relationships between societies. Whether or not it was written directly by God, or by those of a devoted nature, is irrelevant. The bible should inspire others to what positive man could achieve through descriptions of all the horrible and good that man so often does in God’s name. Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. Those who learn from past choices are destined for greatness.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—I can’t stick around today, but I’d like to make one last attempt to clarify my points to you about Science, Religion, and Ethics. All of these points lead me to the statement that is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still (not moving) and that the Sun and other celestial bodies are moving around us, and not the other way around, which is the assumption behind the Ptolemaic Model of Planetary Motion.

To do this, I need to explain (1) The true nature of motion, and how it can be measured. (2) Why a true understanding of physical motion (and hence reference frames in general) is important beyond the scope of Physics (3) How any of this relates to the topic of the week, which is whether an educated person can believe in a literal Bible.

By wayne

July 17, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

Are open-minded people beyond the expectation of merely accepting the concept of faith? In today’s world, I no longer accept fact, merely by telling me it is fact, or even offering proof. Facts don’t exist, it is merely conjecture. Since faith is something most cannot comfortably wrap their arms around as a true tangible, many reject it and the Bible’s teachings as ‘old men writing a book of fallacy’, yet continue to accept so-called facts of what is presented to them on a daily basis, and still not questioning the source. Hypocrisy at it’s best.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

In return, I don’t recall you ever going out on a limb and giving us your own personal TOE—Theory of Everything. You’re a smart guy, I’m interested in hearing how you put all the various pieces together to form a coherent world-view

We have discussed it and it is not much different than what you have concluded. I ended my post by explaining that I have the wisdom to know that it only serves each specific individual, and to preach it is counter productive. Guiding another is a different story though, yet the person being guided must want the knowledge you have.

By your previous logic, the rabbit running through the yard this morning very well could be static and the universe was moving around him - if one wants to let the tail wag the dog;) You could also bring up a million other paradoxes in math/science but they all serve only one purpose: to poo-poo others ACTIVE ideas.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Dog,

And I hold by my position that your original post was to burn bridges and not to build them. That surely is not part of your TOE, or is it?

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

Addressing these points in reverse order:

(3) Can an educated person believe in a literal Bible? If so, how? If not, why not?

In order to declare the Bible to be “literal”, we first need to agree upon the meaning of the word “literal”. According to my dictionary, there are several possible meanings. The simplest definition of “literal” means “word for word”. Here, it is generally believed that most—if not all—of the stories recorded in the Bible were originally oral traditions which were passed down through generations of first Jews, then later the Greeks, before they were written down. As such, for the Bible to be “literal”, that means that no transcription errors could have ever occurred in the unbroken chain from oral stories in Hebrew and Greek to printed Bibles such as the King James Version. While it is possible that no such errors have ever occurred, I believe the evidence suggests otherwise.

A second, more profound meaning of the word “literal” means adhering to facts, or at least providing an account which focuses primarily on factual statements. In this regard, I again feel safe to say that the Bible, with all of its allegory, and outright inconsistencies does not pass this standard of literalness either. As such, an educated person should have a hard time declaring the Bible to be “literal”.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

The question remains, then, why would an otherwise educated person choose to believe in a literal Bible. I have two possible explanations to that. First off, the first comprehensive world-view most people are taught is in church, in Sunday School or Vacation Bible School. As such, it becomes a deeply embedded memory which is hard to shake. Even more importantly, religion offers a world-view which does make sense on many levels, even if only to offer the comfort of an afterlife. Thus, faced with questions which are either difficult or impossible to answer, any world-view which offers definite answers can be appealing.

By Not Fooled

July 17, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

In the words of Billy Idol, he’s dancin wif hisself.

By Clinton

July 17, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

What exactly do you mean, by “IS”?

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

(2) Why is an understanding of Physics (and thus Science in general)important to this discussion?

Once an “educated” person decides that the world-view presented by Religion (anthropomorphic, external Creator) doesn’t correlate with our normal observations of how life works, the next logical place to look for answers is Science. Science is very appealing at first with it’s big words and abundance of numerical “measurements”. But, the bottom line is that Science is predicated upon a definite world-view also, that view being that the fate of all matter is ultimately decided by mechanical processes which can be well-represented by mechanical models—in other words, the appearance of Intelligence in the Universe is simply an illusion.

To its credit, Modern Physics has advanced beyond the point of declaring that the fate of all matter is deterministic. Unfortunately, the most vocal “advocates” of Science = Truth seemed to have missed this point.

The deepest truth about Science is that its ultimate aim is to construct models by which the world makes sense. Any reputable Scientist understands at a fundamental level the difference between Reality and Models of Reality. SImply put, a city street and a map of a city street are two very different things. Again, the Science “advocates” I meet never seem to grasp this point.

By Jesse's Girl

July 17, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

While I have enjoyed this locker room show of my IQ is bigger than your’s…seriously, do some of you not have lives….this does not boil down to simple theory and chalk board logic. This is a very personal issue. Everyone has to make a choice in regards to spirituality and Biblical belief. Although I do hold Jesus as my Saviour, I recognize that no one has the capability to embrace and understand all of these issues at the same time. It is human nature to assume that believing one thing negates another. We simply are not evolved enough to have a truly intelligent debate about all of this. But the posturing and chest thumping is entertaining.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

If one is not fooled by some one who is not fooling him, is he not then fooling himself?

The easy answer is that he is a fool;)

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Therefore, to wrap up point (2), if a person is going to look to Science for answers about the nature of Reality in order to develop a world-view which correlates more closely with Reality than the Church Model, it makes a lot of sense to understand the nature of Scientific inquiry, and most importantly, the limitations of Scientific Inquiry

Specifically, JokesOn, you seem to have trouble accepting that no motion is absolute, the measurement of any motion is tied to the reference frame chosen. It is possible that you understand this at some level with your statement:

By your previous logic, the rabbit running through the yard this morning very well could be static and the universe was moving around him - if one wants to let the tail wag the dog;)

From the frame of reference of the rabbit, yes, the yard is “moving backwards”. You may say this is silly, because in this situation it is common to view the Earth as the unmoving reference frame, so that the rabbit is the object which has “Absolute Motion” while the Earth is “Absolutely Motionless”. To be fair, in most situations, choosing the earth as the Absolutely Motionless reference frame is more convenient than choosing the rabbit as your reference frame, although their is no physical reason to do so.

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Good Morning, kids! I was reading a joke sent by a friend that was in The Onion when I stumbled onto this ‘article’ that had me chuckling and somehow it seem appropriate based on our discussions this week (and even though it’s not Friday yet)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29057

Happy Reading! And we’re off to the first conference call of the day.. Woo-hoo!!

By Gnostic

July 17, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Ever since the very earliest christians gathered to worship, there have been those who saw things literally, and those who saw them as metaphorical. The “Gnostics” like Ptolemy believed that by reading texts like The Gospel of Thomas, Phillip, and even John, that one could unlock the secrets of the underlying texts.

Contrasting their point of view was that of Iraneous who thought that anything other than a straight reading of the texts was heretical.

Ultimately, Iraneous’ point of view became the point that united the church and his ideas are upon what the Nicene Creed is based.

I believe that the texts are written on several layers. A person can get as much out of the text as their individual capacities will allow them. However, I also believe that the texts are written so that whatever anyone gets out of them, is enough.

So, if a person reads the book and believes in the “old man in the clouds” or if a person reads the book and believes in something much different, either one of those outcomes is favorable.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

We simply are not evolved enough to have a truly intelligent debate about all of this. But the posturing and chest thumping is entertaining.

Maybe all you know is chest thumping, because I surely am not stating that dog has a lower IQ, just that I have some pieces that he does not. I know the inverse is true as well.

And yes, there are some that exist that have higher than binary thinking capabilities. They got that way by performing mental gymnastics - maybe you should try it for you might see more than thumping.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

More specifically:

So, you find each of these equally acceptable?

A) the sun revolves the earth which is stationary

From the point of view of the inhabitants of Earth, that is an Observer on Earth, indeed the Earth is motionless. The Sun rises in the East, traverses across the sky, and sets in the West. At night, the moon “rises” as well, and the stars and planets move across the evening sky in well-documented
paths. While the Ptolemaic model of motion appears complicated, it is accurate, and most importantly, matches our experience of solar, lunar, and planetary motion as inhabitants of earth. Don’t diss this view, it is our view.

B) the earth revolves the sun which is stationary

Form th point of view of an observer on the Sun, or perhaps very near the solar system, it will appear that the Sun is motionless and the planets orbit around in in elliptical paths. This viewpoint gives a pretty picture of planetary motion and is thus used for explanatory purposes in school as well as by NASA in making calculations due to the increased simplicity over positioning an Observer on Earth.

C) they revolve each other (binary)

If you move your Observer waaay out in space, his or her view would be entirely different. Because the entire solar system is moving within the Milky Way Galaxy, and because the entire Milky Way galaxy is rotating as well, neither the sun nor earth could be considered motionless. Their individual paths through space from this vantage point would be a superposition of many complex movements, so that the final “path” would likely appear as some sort of wild spiral motion for both the sun and earth. Another huge problem even here is the fact that the Observer has no way of knowing whether he is in motion himself , which ultimately affects his perception of the motion of the Milky Way and its constituents.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

To wrap up point (2), consider the ramifications of motion/reference frames: In order to say that motion is “Absolute”, we must station an Observer outside of the Universe itself, thereby establishing a non-moving reference frame which is not tied to any of the objects being observed. as explained above, if you can’t position an Observer outside of the entire Universe, then your observer has to be stationed on one of the moving bodies, thereby giving only one “viewpoint”. Even an Observer in space can’t be sure he or she isn’t moving in some Absolute way or not, so that all measurement must be taken as relative.

So, by the dictates of “normal” Logic, we are forced to decide whether it is possible to station an Observer outside of the Universe or not. The people who believe such an Observer can (and does) exist believe in the traditional vision of God presented in Church—an omnipotent and omnipresent being which exists “outside” of the realm of “normal” life. The people who believe that no such possibility exists are stuck with a self-contained Universe which basically has to Create itself, the current theory being that Big Bang + Evolution = Complex Life.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

As you just confirmed, only one of the three have any applicative validity.

The other two are purely for theoretical entertainment, or insults like you used. I do not find the other two useful except if all parties want to kick around theories and no one here has shown that.

Your inability to admit that you used theory soley to belittle someone is a shame.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Finally, (3) What does a true understanding of motion have to do with anything?

As I tried to emphasize yesterday, JokesOn, discussions of Physics, Religions, and world-views would all be academic except for the fact that people’s behavior and beliefs relate directly to the world-view that they select (or settle upon by default in some cases). Folks like chuck, who believe wholeheartedly that an anthropomorphic Creator exists outside of our normal Universe, life has an Absolute quality about it. After all, the Creator either approves or disapproves of your actions in some Absolute Way. The suicide bombers in the Middle East take a similar Absolute view of life, and are convinced of the rightness of their point of view, their reference frame. In case you haven’t noticed, the “Universal Reference Frame” that is supposed to be God in these religions usually have a suspiciously “local” quality about them.

At the other extreme, the folks who can’t believe in an outside Observer, not even in theory or as an ideal, are stuck with pure relativity, in which each frame of reference, or personal point of view, has equal weight, and thus equal validity. In such a world, there are no “rights” and “wrongs”, only “relative truth” which depends upon the Observer. Another name for this is “moral relativism”.

By Mara

July 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

wayne - In today’s world, I no longer accept fact, merely by telling me it is fact, or even offering proof. Facts don’t exist, it is merely conjecture

If you were to accidentally sever your finger, wouldn’t it be a fact that your finger is no longer connected to your body? If your billfold contains one twenty dollar bill, is it not a fact that you only have one twenty dollar bill in your wallet? Is it “merely conjecture” to say the moon is not the Earth, I am not you, and that strawberry icecream is NOT a cast-iron skillet or an African elephant? Aren’t these facts?

And you say facts don’t exist…

By HUH?

July 17, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

moral relativism is different from motion relativism HOW?

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

As you just confirmed, only one of the three have any applicative validity.

Not at all, JokesOn. The fixed earth model is useful to describe our everyday expectations of where the sun will be “in the sky” at a given time of the day or year, as well as the positions of the planets in the night sky, as we see it. Even if a Copernican model is used to make the predictions, these predictions have to be retranslated to the point of view of an Earth Observer so that they are useful to the end-user—an earth-bound inhabitant. As stated above, the fixed sun model is useful due to the pretty graph it makes on paper. As for the “Godly” view of the motion of the earth and sun hurtling through space, its only value would be in describing a path of “Absolute Motion” which you stated you believe in. E.g. you state that the rabbit is moving in some Absolute way, and I disagree. From the Godly view, he rabbit may be moving in such a way as to perfectly cancel out the other external motions it is subject to so that it may be in fact the only motionless object in the Universe at that moment. We’ll never know for sure, however.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

moral relativism is different from motion relativism HOW?

Here’s how: Normal logic forces us to choose one choice of every “either or proposition”. This is know in Philosophy as the Principle of the Excluded Middle. As applied to motion, it would seem that we are forced to choose between the possibility of an outside Observer, whereby establishing the ideal of Absolute Motion, or a system in which no outside Observer is possible, whereby establishing that all motion is Relative Motion.

Similarly, we have to make a moral choice in life based on the possibility of a God or not. Do you believe in a Created Universe? If so, you better “listen” to the Creator if possible and try to “get right” with said Creator. The Bible or some other spiritual book will give the appropriate commandments. If you believe in no Creator, then again you are left with a self-Creating, self-deciding existence, in which morality is decided upon by the individual. This is the basis of Hedonism.

By Billy Idol

July 17, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

“Cause if I had the chance I’d ask the world to dance, but I be dancin’ wif’ myse’f, dancin’ wif myse’f, oh ho ho dancin’ wif myse’f!”

By Jesse's Girl

July 17, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Oh please boys…..there are 3 of you doing the “mental gymnastics” here. I think most who read this and see your posts do not perceive you to be some academic gymnasts. I think most likely they see you trying to one up eachother; perhaps stroking and complimeting eachother’s egos. And that is all well and good. But let us not lose sight of one very important point…at the end of the day, none of you are giving anything more than your opinions. And that is exactly my point. For all of the debating and text book arguments, this simply boils down to one’s personal belief system. We all have one. No one is going to convince a literal Bible believer to consider anything else. Just like no one else is going to convince you Hawking-wannabes to listen to your hearts over your heads. But like I said before, the display of keyboard plumage is entertaining.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

The fixed earth model is useful to describe our everyday expectations of where the sun will be “in the sky” at a given time of the day or year, as well as the positions of the planets in the night sky, as we see it.

No one I know, and that includes some serious red-necks, thinks of the “sun rising” means it is coming around to meet us.

I tire of your obtuseness. The fact that you will argue that the odds are equal that the universe is moving in the inverse pattern of a random rabbit is proof of your stubborn and destructive behavior. You argue only to argue and not to discover anything.

This behavior is what your subject matter should be concerned with and was my point. You can join whiley in this area of err - dont you see that?

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

So, in the end, I view the choice of world-view not only to have consequences in understanding Physics, but as having ethical consequences as well. For me, as I’ve tried to explain a thousand time, the answer lies smack in the region of the Excluded Middle, which normal Logic says doesn’t exist. In other words, when you ask, is the rabbit moving forward, or is the earth moving backwards, I have to say that both are true at the same time. Make any sense? in other words the rabbit is both in motion and motionless, all at the same time. If you read any Zen koan, the basis is always the same in forcing the reader to ponder the excluded Middle in which every statement and its converse are both true at the same time.

As for the practicality and applicability of this way of thinking, I see lots of benefits, but it’s not an easy road to have to think so much. As such, I can see the appeal of the other two roads.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

at the end of the day, none of you are giving anything more than your opinions. And that is exactly my point. For all of the debating and text book arguments, this simply boils down to one’s personal belief system. We all have one. No one is going to convince a literal Bible believer to consider anything else. Just like no one else is going to convince you Hawking-wannabes to listen to your hearts over your heads. But like I said before, the display of keyboard plumage is entertaining.

I appreciate the compliment, Jesse’s Girl. And actually, we both agree that we all have a unique viewpoint which may or may not be subject to change based upon ideas aired on a blog. For me, however, the “God” question always intrigued me, until I came across Zen. It helped me understand that the Christian Bible is divided into two parts with two very different outlooks on life. In the Old Testament, God commands people to behave certain ways, explicitly. This is the epitome of duty-based ethics. In the New Testament, however, Jesus presents a different vision of morality in which we are required to actually think about the various commandments by employing a virtue of “Love Your Neighbor”. A such, you could say Jesus advocates a Virtue-based brand of morality.

As for the third type of morality, Utilitarianism, I believe that’s the Devil’s Way. “The greatest good for the greatest number of people” is a shaky standard by which to make decisions IMO. Instead of just doing the “right” thing, Utilitarianism opens the door for all kinds of rationalizations which violate both prescribed duties and established virtues.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

I ended my post by explaining that I have the wisdom to know that it only serves each specific individual, and to preach it is counter productive. Guiding another is a different story though, yet the person being guided must want the knowledge you have.

You’re likely right, JokesOn, which basically leaves people in a place of not really being able to “help” one another. Kind of frustrating to me, but that’s the way it is, right?

Gotta run, take it easy.

By Clinton

July 17, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

What exactly do you mean, by “IS”?

By lozen

July 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Do you never, ever get tired of hearing yourselves talk Mutt? I think you got so tired of your own drivel you’ve not invented someone to debate with you. It’s still boring as he—!

By lozen

July 17, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Should have been “you’ve now invented someone”

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Do you believe in a Created Universe? If so, you better “listen” to the Creator if possible and try to “get right” with said Creator. The Bible or some other spiritual book will give the appropriate commandments. If you believe in no Creator, then again you are left with a self-Creating, self-deciding existence, in which morality is decided upon by the individual. This is the basis of Hedonism.

I believe that you’ve forgotten an alternative which many people, such as me, hold in that we believe in a Creator who set the world/universe in motion, but who is not intimately involved in the daily machinations of human life or even life in general. The complexity of life on our own planet is far too complex and elegant for me to accept that it’s all truly random or left to chance. At the same time, I do not believe that the ‘definer of the rules governing life, the universe, and everything’ honestly cares or even hears the pleas of humans for their team to win the championship game, or to heal one person over another with the same disease, or whatever other quotidian request is made.

Be forewarned that I’m going to show my extremely limited knowledge (aka a$$) on matters of physics here, but it is my understanding that the universe is of such size that it creates its own gravity and curves around on itself basically forming a sphere. If this is the case, then it logically follows that there must be something outside of the universe. Assuming one believes in the Big Bang wouldn’t there also be something outside of the universe for it to expand into?

By JohnF

July 17, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

“So, if a person reads the book and believes in the “old man in the clouds” or if a person reads the book and believes in something much different, either one of those outcomes is favorable”

Usually ture, however,this becomes unfavorable when the outcome leads a person to attempt to codify that belief into our laws.

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

The fact that you will argue that the odds are equal that the universe is moving in the inverse pattern of a random rabbit is proof of your stubborn and destructive behavior.
As a somewhat objective reader of your discussion with Mutt, I do not agree with your assessment. What I read Mutt’s argument to be is that the stationary rabbit is an equally valid frame of reference to measure movement to all other frames of reference. The difference being that some frames of reference are more useful and more easily fit into understanding than others. I’ve not seen him argue that “the odds are equal.’

By carla

July 17, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Back to the week’s question: Just look at the south. Very bad education - a huge amount of bible thumpers. Which came first? The more people think they know all the answers, the less important they believe education to be. Bad education = uneducated people who don’t know how to think. Look at this monologue we’ve endured with “multiple personality disorder”. They think there are only two choices: Hedonism or believing in and bowing down to a creator. There are many, many more choices!

By lozen

July 17, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Many, many more choices!

By RF

July 17, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

The basic argument in this week’s “discussion” is faith vs. science. Science is based on observable fact and the theories said fact fosters which are either proven or disproven by further study. As humans we have to admit that our “scientific” study of the universe is theoretical because there is much we know we’ll never observe. We can only postulate until evidence is provided. Faith is a belief in what can’t be observed and trust in what one “feels” to be true as a combination of intellect and emotions. Religion is about faith. Observation influences faith, but is subject to interpretation. The Bible is being interpreted all the time. It is a written document that has been manipulated and rewritten over and over again to fit the needs of the time. It is based on oral stories, which if you study any mythology, you know grow and change over time (i.e.- the fish that got away story). People need to quit trying to make religion “fact” and explain science in light of religion. Scientific observation and faith will never fully agree and shouldn’t.

Those who take the Bible literally have every right to do so, and those who see it as a metaphorical collection of myths have their right too. I’ve seen way too much manipulation and human choice in interpreting the Bible myself. Even the most fundamental christians pick and choose what to follow in the Bible. There’s no way any human could do it all, no matter how much they try to believe they are taking it literally.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

NetB,

I’ve not seen him argue that “the odds are equal.’

I took As such, it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is still and that indeed, the sun is revolving around it. as meaning “just as correct”. If they are not equal, then his mentioning of this to demean him is even less honorable.

To use the concept of relative motion to insult another that is commenting on the bibles notion of sun revolving the earth is bs.

I have no arguement with the fact that relative motion is fact. But when you have to step outside the universe to make your example work, it is the tail wagging the dog.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

but it is my understanding that the universe is of such size that it creates its own gravity and curves around on itself basically forming a sphere. If this is the case, then it logically follows that there must be something outside of the universe. Assuming one believes in the Big Bang wouldn’t there also be something outside of the universe for it to expand into?

I don’t make my living as a physicist, NetB, but I have taken many college courses and have read many books on the topic. Certainly Logic says that if there is an “inside” to some entity, there must be an “outside” as well by symmetry. However, when it comes to deciding if the Universe has a boundary, we end up in no-man’s-land. For, if you define the Universe to mean the Totality, there can be nothing “outside” of the Totality. If there were something outside, you could then expand your definition of the Universe to include what is “outside” of the boundary, so that it ends up “inside” your new boundary. The Physics books I read suggest the Universe is expanding, yet nothing exists outside of the Universe. Kind of hard to think about.

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

The Physics books I read suggest the Universe is expanding; yet nothing exists outside of the Universe. Kind of hard to think about.

I find comfort in it, for consciousness expands into the nothingness that precedes it. That is what I find as one of the purposes in/of life: to expand conscienceless in others. We can see it in the domestication of wolves, to dogs, to dogs that empathize. I find calming symmetry in that idea. (part of my TOE, dog)

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

They think there are only two choices: Hedonism or believing in and bowing down to a creator. There are many, many more choices!

carla, I’m very open to hearing your vision of how the Universe may have got started, whether a Creator was involved, etc. If you follow my thread of thinking, you will see that I too am uncomfortable being forced to choose between two polar opposite world-views when it appears that both shed light on the true nature of existence. In my case, I came up with a hybrid explanation which includes all the results of Science as well as preserving the concepts of Divinity. It works well for me, and avoids the two-world-view phenomenon that most people seem to accept.

My concept is simple: The transition from non-Life to Life is seemingly unbridgeable. No known properties of matter lead to self-organization, but that is what appears to be going on. As such, I think it’s only scientific to conclude that some kind of Divine force has to be working. However, because this Divine force cannot exist outside of the system, it must be an intrinsic property of matter that is unknowable. I like to borrow a term from Christianity—Emmanuel, or God with us—for this intelligent, self-organizing force which we can’t perceive.

To show that I’m open to new explanations. I just purchased a Teaching Company course called The Origin of Life, in which one of the premier Science-Only Scientists, Robert Hazen, explores several theories of how non-living molecules may have “crossed the threshhold” and become living deep in the crust of the Earth, or perhaps deep in the ocean. Another popular theory involves ocean spray.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

To use the concept of relative motion to insult another that is commenting on the bibles notion of sun revolving the earth is bs.

JokesOn, it may not be very diplomatic, but I believe that I’m merely turning back the Science-Only crowd’s insults of the Religion-Only crowd when I bring up the fact that both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of planetary motion are mathematically equivalent. Kind of the Reverse Golden Rule thing again. I don’t particularly believe in a literal Bible, but I know the Scientists don’t have any real answers either to the biggest questions we have about existence and an afterlife. As such, I resent when they come on this blog or on TV and crow on about how Scientific models are FACT and that any other type of speculation is by definition BS. Do you think the Science crowd is adhering to the proper rules of positive leadership you laid out above? Seems to me that they are the most condescending people on Earth, way worse than the religious wackos, IMO.

A far as my own poor leadership, I guess you and the others I come in contact with have the final say about that.

By Mutt

July 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

As a somewhat objective reader of your discussion with Mutt, I do not agree with your assessment. What I read Mutt’s argument to be is that the stationary rabbit is an equally valid frame of reference to measure movement to all other frames of reference. The difference being that some frames of reference are more useful and more easily fit into understanding than others. I’ve not seen him argue that “the odds are equal.’

For the record, JokesOn, NetB was able to perceive the meaning I intended by my statements. I can’t deny that I come here to argue, but I’m usually pretty confident that I’ve got my ducks in a row before I make a strong statement. Whether you or anyone can benefit from my thoughts, again, each person has to be the judge of that. My greatest hope is that one day I will meet someone who can come up with a more comprehensive explanation than Emmanuel. Any new ideas yourself?

By Mara

July 17, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

RF - While I see where you got the idea that it is an argument between “faith” and “science”, I don’t think that the actual question “Why are more educated people less likely to believe the Bible is literally true” should be limited to the “hard” scientists. I would think an English major could just as easily find the Biblical parallels to previous myths and legends reason to disbelieve the literalism of the Bible. A doctor of History would certainly be familiar with the way Constantine and the Nicean Council made their decisions on which books to include and which to ignore when they compiled the Bible. A Master of Languages would understand the difficulties in translating languages word-for-word let alone translating it to preserve the exact meaning of every phrase.

If one has never even heard of the Council of Nicea, the myths of Gilgamesh, or the Gnostics, (as many poorly educated never have), I suppose it would be relatively easy to assume that the Bible WAS written by “god” and IS his word, since this is what most of our parents, grandparents, and respected elders have told us for centuries.

By Bubba

July 17, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

No, Carla, he never, ever gets tired of talking to himself. No one else on the blog talks to him so he had to invent someone else. It’s as if he believes none of us have ever had the thoughts he’s coming up with! He’s just trying to “educate” us. Typical egomaniac.

By dana

July 17, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t understand how anyone can take the bible literally. It can be used for teaching moral lesson or a guide to a life style, but literally.
Let’s just look at the first two books of genesis. Book one says god created the earth then made land and water then light then the animals and finally man and woman. The second book says god created man then had to create some where for man to live and light to see and animals then woman (seems women came last from the beginning). Another question I always ask is after Cane killed Able he went to the city. Where did the city come from and where did all the people come from?

By JokesOn

July 17, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Poor, poor Bubba obviously has very limited rationale to think we are the same person.

Carla,

They think there are only two choices: Hedonism or believing in and bowing down to a creator. There are many, many more choices!

Please show me where I state that there are only two choices.

By Troglodyke

July 17, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

I would think an English major could just as easily find the Biblical parallels to previous myths and legends reason to disbelieve the literalism of the Bible.

I did. I still do. I disbelieve it for hundreds of reasons. I’m not a slave to science, and I readily admit a lot of it flummoxes me. But it answers the questions way better than the bible does.

There are millions of people who are neither slaves to science, nor to religion. It’s not either/or.

Fundies see the world literally as black and white. People who take the time to educate themselves, on the other hand, know there are many, many shades of gray. And the morality within them can, and does, change over time. Morality is not fixed. Morality and religion are NOT mutually exclusive.

By exhorting their flock to stay ignorant, religionists keep their coffers full, but they send sheeple out into the world with little or no concept about the world around them, and how they function in it.

The anti-intellectuals are the ones to be feared, for they seek to dumb down our society, and keep us afraid.

America is the laughingstock of the world because we continue to place so much stock in myths and legends, while at the same time bragging that we are the most advanced.

By Mara

July 17, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

LOL!! I just saw where the Muslims are sending out free copies of “The Atlas of Creation”, the Islamic version of the Christianist’s anti-evolution book “Of Pandas and People”.

By RF

July 17, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Mara- I agree. As a long ago English major myself, I definitely see the parallels in all the major mythologies. I guess the point I should have made to connect to the original question is that educated people are, in fact, aware of the mythological nature of religious doctrine; they see the difference between science and religion and have no problem keeping them separate. However, what’s interesting to me is how many very intelligent people I know who are very much hard-line Bible believers. For all their education, they don’t see how they manipulate the Bible and only quote parts that back up their ideas. They’ll get all red in the face if you point out the contradictions. The older I get the more incredible it is that otherwise smart people see the Bible as the one and only word of God…I better not get started on that issue!!

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Hey RF! How goes summer school? Are you still finding time to hang with your boys?

I have to agree with Mara that non-belief in the literal Bible can really affect a broad cross section of people regardless of science. I’ve personally run into the non-translation scenario during college or when playing verbal translator. There truly are some phrases that are culturally distinct and just don’t translate literally.

Where did the city come from and where did all the people come from? I’m going to guess they were either the Adam and Eve prototypes or more likely they ate the forbidden fruit and had moved out of the Garden a long time ago leaving Adam and Eve behind.

By RF

July 17, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Mara- I’m also fascinated by Constantine and his manipulation of the biblical texts. I can’t imagine anyone not seeing the political purpose behind it. Constantine was a very smart man to see how controlling the growing masses of Christians was to his advantage. So good, in fact, that his work has remained basically intact since, except for the interpretive decisions of the King James and his “scholars”…

By RF

July 17, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Net! Summer school ended a little over a week ago and we’re just hanging out and doing all the house chores. The boys have been to church camp and fishing with my dad while I work on my online classes. They’re having a ball! I’m hoping to squeeze in a quick trip to Rock City and Ruby Falls next week and a weekend for some grownup time if I can. Never a dull moment!!

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

RF, I can kind of understand why some very intelligent people will believe in the Bible and it’s being the unerring (or as I was taught in church) or inspired word of God. Those who are intelligent tend to exercise their minds regularly and often end up in careers which require them to expend a fair amount of intellectual energy on a daily basis. Regardless of intelligence there are many questions that can not be answered and many of these cover the realm of spirituality. Rather than continually exercising one’s mind, it can be a bit of a relief to have an area of life which doesn’t require a whole lot of thought…and this area often is religion. There is comfort in the community and rituals of religion so why not also make that the area of one’s life where rather than pursue their quest for knowledge or understanding one just accepts things as stated. Think of it as the intellectual rest period.

I know that explanation is a stretch, but I think it works. As a more concrete example of the same concept, I make numerous decisions at work every single day about how our product should function. Not only do my decisions affect 30-50 employees who must execute based on them, but hundreds of thousands of product users are affected too. At the end of the day having my partner decide where to go to dinner or what movie to see or which social invitation to accept is just fine and dandy with me. It’s not that I don’t care so much as it’s a relief to not have to make another decision and to allow someone else to take the lead for a while.

By NetBanker

July 17, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

a weekend for some grownup time Don’t you really mean a weekend to be an adult kid since you’re the grown up all the time?

By lozen

July 17, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Hey RF, have you taken the kids to Cherokee lately? So much for them to do and see and learn about the original inhabitants of the US of A … It was a water beetle that invented the earth, not god! Or maybe a spider woman. Or Ixchel and her daughter if you were from the Yucatan. So many creation stories to choose from. I like the science fiction idea that the earth was chosen as a penal colony by an advanced civilization. They’ve been watching us all these centuries now wondering how we retards never learn that violence never solves anything.

By Mara

July 18, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Well…we’ve listed several reasons that the better educated tend to disbelieve that the Bible is literally truth. On the other side of that, I’d be interested in knowing how people who do believe deal with those issues. Surely not all of them are ignorant yokels…

By Mara

July 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Surely not all of them are ignorant yokels…

okay, that last post didn’t come out quite the way I meant it…LOL!!!

By Chilao

July 18, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Now we know that is EXACTLY what you meant, Mara. (joking)

Okay, what did it for me, that is discounting any LITERAL Biblical translation of things, and I mentioned this a long time ago right here, was my parents tried hard to instill in me both the literal interpretation, and how right it/we were.

However, they made the gross mistake of exposing me to many different cultures, all at a young age, due to them being missionaries in basically international communities. By the time I was ten I had had playmates who were Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu, animists, and the worst of them all(dripping sarcasm), Catholics. And knew them and their parents as fine individuals. So I was able to come to the conclusion that so much of any religion is MAN-manufactured. Just a simple comparison of the KJV and the Catholic Bible made me realize that.

And that was LONG before any “indoctrination” by heathen instructors at some educational institute. LOL

By Chilao

July 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Americans don’t understand others, due to our rugged individualism. And this is news? LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070718/sc_livescience/studyamericansdontunderstandothers

By lozen

July 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

And that was LONG before any “indoctrination” by heathen instructors at some educational institute. LOL Chilao, how’d ya get to be so smart?

By Pat

July 18, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Atheists and fundamentalists share one insufferable trait: a smug belief in the superiority of their own views. Most of us, thankfully, eschew this territory and find it fairly easy to embrace new scientific findings and our faith. Let the fringe keep battling, the rest of us don’t care.

By theBiscuit

July 18, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, you’re a nut. Why do you think the poorest countries in the world mostly cling to their “holy book” literally. They’re under educated and lemmings similar to what Europe was in the middle-ages when the blasphemous idea of imagining the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, resulted in punishment.

To infer that the reason more people don’t take the bible literally is because professors bash down people in college is ridiculous. People in college tend to think for themselves more, generally have experienced more. Based on the bible, you are subservient to man. Is that the case? Taking the bible literally, allows many interpretations.

The bible is the most “Proven” work in history? Are you out of your mind. Just because its the most read, doesn’t mean its been “Proven”. What happened to your Faith? By the way, before you assume things, I am a conservative.

By RF

July 18, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Net- I’ve forgotten where the playgrounds are for the grownup kids!! LOL It has been a WHILE!

Lozen- we’ve got Cherokee on our list. I’m finishing a master’s in October, so the travel plans have had to be short this past year. I love it up there- especially the state parks.

Mara- educated people can definitely be ignorant yokels. I know a few!! Education doesn’t equal sense. :)

By Archie

July 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Atheists and fundamentalists share one insufferable trait: a smug belief in the superiority of their own views.

I agree with that Pat and that’s why I didn’t participate much in this discussion.

By lizbeth

July 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

http://www.ohjjl.com

By lozen

July 18, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Pat, I do hope you’re right. But you better care about the fundies and their attempts to control all of us based on their religious beliefs. I just don’t see any atheists trying to ban medical procedures for every woman, or infiltrate school and library boards, and the government to force their beliefs on everyone else!

By Chilao

July 18, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Lozen - It is genetic (and I have an adopted sister that supports that view as she got the same nurture and education as the rest of us. LOL)

By Chilao

July 18, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

And I would NEVER equate education with intelligence.

Why, some of the absolute dumbest people ever…oh, never mind.

By What fools these mortals be!

July 18, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Both those who take the Bible literally and those who think, reason, and question seek the same thing: comfort in being enlightened. The difference is simply one of ambition.

The first group is lazy: “God said it, I believe it, ‘nuff said.” They take their comfort early on by letting go (and “letting God.”) They’re done; they’re living in the comfort zone: “I’m going to heaven, and if you’re not, that’s your problem.”

The second group is more energetic. They see understanding as not just a goal, but a journey. They delight in the little light bulbs going off, one by one, as a result of striving in earnest to make sense of it all. They take comfort in the knowledge that they tried, and cared, and dared to reason and see.

Both groups avoid the reality: There is no meaning. There is no point. There is no truth, no love, no purpose, no magic. We are born, we breathe, we survive in a complex maze of the physical, emotional, and societal realms. We die. We try so hard, we come so far, but in the end, it doesn’t even matter.

By lozen

July 18, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Whatfoolsthesemortalsbe, Ever heard that old cliche, “It’s not where you’re going that matters, but the journey itself?” What about the magic of a beautiful sunrise? Have you never looked into the eyes of the one you love and seen their love for you? Never fallen into a state of peace where everything is just the way it should be? (Hard to describe but never to be forgotten.) You could be right, but are you depressed?

By Mortal fool

July 18, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

“Have you never looked into the eyes of the one you love and seen their love for you?”

Thanks for reminding me why I’m depressed today. How nice for you that your not rejected and alone. Way to cheer a person up, L! Now its raining again. Swell.

By Mara

July 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

I’m going to heaven, and if you’re not, that’s your problem

and it’d be fine if they actually let it be one’s own problem. Unfortunately they don’t. They really want to use the state to force the sinner to behave in a more “godly” way. Look at all the “blue laws” that are still on the books and still enforced. Do you actually think laws regarding gambling, drinking, adult sex, and the like have as much to do with public safety as they do with soothing the sensibilities of the religious? There’s a reason why revenue from such activities are called “sin taxes”. And it isn’t just fundie Christians. The Muslims are just as bad with their various incarnations of the Ministry of Vice and Virtue. Even the Hindi have problems leaving people to live as they choose. They got all upset a few weeks ago when Richard Gere laid a public smooch on some Indian actress’ cheek.

By Aerosmith

July 18, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Oh, it’s a sunny day outside my window.

By lyrazel

July 18, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Excuse me but WHICH interpretation and WHICH version of the Bible are we supposed to believe literally because there are too many bibles…orthodox and jeffersonian…new age bibles and st. james. etc. Which book is a true book and which books are false books—and why are books removed if they were part of the Bible?

I think the Bible’s literal interpretation changes by societies convenience—like the apostles wrote to attract Greeks to Christianity Paul allowed consumption of pork. Our society allows women to wear make up and some allow women to become ministers and speak in church. We no longer allow uncles to rape nieces and sell barren wives for virgins nor is being a shepherd a good career.

Education only helps people see how scripture has been modified per the centuries into the texts we keep modifying. Belief is neither taught or learned…it just is.

By Mara

July 18, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

RF and Net - I would never equate education with intelligence (or with common sense for that matter). I’ve known too many smart, sensible folks who never made it through school to do that!!

Nor do I confuse “ignorance” with “stupidity”. Ignorance can be cured with enough information, stupid is forever.

By Been There Too

July 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

How nice for you that your not rejected and alone.

Tomorrow is a new day, Mortal fool. Don’t give up hope.

By Anonymous

July 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Shaunti’s conclusion is a bit odd. She sees that the more a person learns, the less likely they are to believe that the Bible is literally word-for-word true…

So from that, she concludes “There must be something wrong with education!”

I guess the alternative—the more obvious conclusion, that the Bible being literally, factually accurate is pretty unlikely—just isn’t a possibility in her world, so she has to bash those who think and come to the “wrong” conclusions.

By Pointless

July 18, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

There is no magic being in the sky that sees you when you’re sleeping, cares if you’re awake, knows if you have been bad or good, or gives a good gosh darn either way.

People believe it because they need to believe in something. Reality bites and who wants to think about that? Believe or don’t. It’s all the same.

By Been There Too

July 18, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Now its raining again. Swell.

Rain is good for the tomatoes. ; > }

By Been There Too

July 18, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Reality bites and who wants to think about that? Believe or don’t. It’s all the same.

I’m voting with lozen on that one, Pointless. The “peak” moments in life seem to get farther apart as the years go by, but that’s ok. It’s still worth it.

By duhbya

July 19, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this

Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

By Nothing to prove

July 19, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Those of you who do not believe have no proof just as those who do believe. In my experience I have seen more college educated people at church than the less. God wants us to believe based on Faith. So why would there be scientific proof, or any other form of proof out there, it would go against the whole belief. I know that God exists, and I do not believe because I am scared or any other reason. If I could die and be dead, that would be easy, but having to live a life in Christ is much harder than not believing especially in today’s society. The Bible was written by man not to prove that a God existed but to use as a teaching guide. God is in each one of us, so please stop basing wether God exists by what the Bible says, that is ridiculous.