Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[pinkbubblegum]

I'm saying that you have two options:

1. Take the Bible literally.

2. Take the Bible metaphorically.

With option 1, the Bible is not compatible with science.

With option 2, it is compatible with science, but you can either take the Bible completely metaphorically or not at all. You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

BRS, Nightmare might believe in both, but I'm saying that it is not rational.

Sorry Olwen. But it kind of just... flies over my head why it has to be one thing or the other. Do we live in a world where these rules rigidly apply? Does the very fabric of the universe unravel if you use your head to filter what to follow to the tee in the Bible and what to take as a metaphorical lesson? One thing I was thought in Catholic school was to be sensible enough to know when things apply, and when things don't.

And I guess that's the thing about religion too. It evolves with the times. People are a whole lot more tolerant now than they were at the writing of the Bible. Some things just don't apply now than how many years ago. Else we'd have fanatics stoning people for their disbelief in a God xD;

[Chiki]

But when you read, for instance, Corinthians 6:9, you know fairly well that what is said should be taken quite literally (you might wonder what the 'kingdom of God' refers to, but that is addressed elsewhere).

From what do you know it should be taken literally?

We can understand the question and, no doubt, relate to the issue of human suffering and the search for its meaning, but the study of text alone will not provide an adequate understanding of what the answer conveyed; you can only live out your life and learn, hopefully ask if given the chance. However, we do understand very clearly that suffering does not necessarily befall the sufferers due to their sins or even those of their ancestry. So the people who asked the question most likely made sense out of it; so can we.

My issue with trying to derive your own meaning out of things is that it's subjective. You have no evidence to conclusively prove that your assumption is correct, regardless of how strong your beliefs are.

Let's say you knew for sure that New Zealand existed, and that countless numbers of people have talked about New Zealand's existence. So you have subjective assurance that New Zealand exists. And let us also assume that it is not within your power to visit New Zealand, so you cannot objectively assure yourself of New Zealand's existence. Does it follow that your interpretation of New Zealand's objective truth is real? No. You don't know for sure if New Zealand exists despite countless numbers of people telling you so. They could be deceiving you.

The issue with your metaphorical assumptions of certain passages in the Bible remains. You cannot conclusively prove that your assumptions are true, for there is no evidence that they are.

I see free will primarily as the ability to choose, most importantly, between good and lack thereof. I see no reason why our ancestors would not function in essentially the same way as we do now.

A religious person does not want to come to the conclusion you have come to. If free will is the ability to choose between good and the lack thereof, then presumably neanderthals and homo erectus, etc. can do the same. Modern humans alone were created in God's image, not Homo erectus. So while you claim that our ancestors do have free will, a religious person does not want to say this.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that it is impossible for any given text to contain both literal and metaphorical contents?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that you can't rationally conclusively decide on what is literal and metaphorical. It is certainly true that the Bible may have been written with both literal and metaphorical messages; but I am saying that it is impossible to figure out which messages these are with certainty.

Sorry Olwen. But it kind of just... flies over my head why it has to be one thing or the other. Do we live in a world where these rules rigidly apply? Does the very fabric of the universe unravel if you use your head to filter what to follow to the tee in the Bible and what to take as a metaphorical lesson? One thing I was thought in Catholic school was to be sensible enough to know when things apply, and when things don't.

And I guess that's the thing about religion too. It evolves with the times. People are a whole lot more tolerant now than they were at the writing of the Bible. Some things just don't apply now than how many years ago. Else we'd have fanatics stoning people for their disbelief in a God xD;

You don't have to be one thing or another, of course, unless you're a purely rational robot. But is it rational to be somewhere in between? No. Can you conclusively prove that your cherrypicked message is metaphorical? Literal? No. Therefore you can't be rationally somewhere in between. You have to be one or the other.

Of course, you can choose to be irrational. That's what the religious people do. Faith over logic.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Olwen

[Dwalin2010]

If free will is the ability to choose between good and the lack thereof, then presumably neanderthals and homo erectus, etc. can do the same. Modern humans alone were created in God's image, not Homo erectus.

By the way, this is another interesting point to discuss. What should the point of view of a religious person about intermediate stages like Homo Erectus be? I mean, God being considered the Creator doesn't deny the existence of the evolution, in my view he just determined the laws that function in the world, it's not like he just created Homo Sapiens from nothing and Homo Erectus and the dinosaurs didn't exist.

[Chiki]

The religious person has nothing to say about those intermediate stages, hence why I claim that religion and science cannot coexist.

God just as a creator who created the universe does not deny evolution; but then, that wouldn't be the Abrahamic God you speak of. For the Abrahamic one is a lot more... detailed than that.

[Dwalin2010]

The religious person has nothing to say about those intermediate stages, hence why I claim that religion and science cannot coexist.

God just as a creator who created the universe does not deny evolution; but then, that wouldn't be the Abrahamic God you speak of. For the Abrahamic one is a lot more... detailed than that.

Still, since you said yourself that it's impossible to determine which parts of the Bible are allegoric, those parts could well regard the description of the Abrahamic God as well. I mean, I consider myself religious but don't take everything literally. Somebody may say of course it's quite egoistical to choose for myself which parts are allegories and which are not, but there is no choice as there is no certain way to know. I am only sure about parts that openly contradict the statement about God being a Good entity, like stoning heretics or sacrificing animals etc. I think such things may only be invented by humans and humans alone.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Esau of Isaac]

Of course not. What I'm saying is that you can't rationally conclusively decide on what is literal and metaphorical.

Why? Why is it impossible to decide what is plain text and what is metaphor?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

A religious person does not want to come to the conclusion that the Abrahamic God is not all powerful, all good, etc.

There is one argument which I think is rational. The argument that there is a necessary being that must exist for the universe to exist. But this necessary being does not have to be God at all.

Why? Why is it impossible to decide what is plain text and what is metaphor?

Wtf? How many times do I have to refer you back to my posts?

You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Olwen

[Dwalin2010]

A religious person does not want to come to the conclusion that the Abrahamic God is not all powerful, all good, etc.

Still, believing he is all good and all powerful doesn't exclude evolution, in my opinion.

[Chiki]

Still, believing he is all good and all powerful doesn't exclude evolution, in my opinion.

It has to. Evolution by definition leads to death, which religious people would claim is immoral. So evolution is inherently immoral. God created immorality, so God is not all good.

[Dwalin2010]

It has to. Evolution by definition leads to death, which religious people would claim is immoral. So evolution is inherently immoral. God created immorality, so God is not all good.

But religion doesn't deny death as a physical process, it only states there is an after-life for the souls in a completely different dimension, to put it simple. To be honest, it's the first time I hear about death being considered immoral by religious, at least by Christians.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Premature death, then. Evolution leads to the premature death of creatures.

[Dwalin2010]

Premature death, then. Evolution leads to the premature death of creatures.

Evolution involves natural extinction of numerous species, but it's not like all of the specimens die prematurely. Many will die a natural death. Many will be killed and eaten by other species of course, but I don't think religion applies moral standards to animals. Of course, the obvious question in this case would be: why did God determine the evolution that involves violent deaths of many specimens if he could have created humanity just like that, this I can't really explain, I admit it.

I personally chose to be religious because many religious people around me are kind and good, and some have changed for the better after becoming religious (I am not saying they were bad before though). To me, it's mostly about moral standards (religious zealots and fanatics who have nothing better to do than going after people who don't think like them are a different matter).

Anyway, everybody has their own way to find goodness. It's not like I am saying everybody should necessarily turn religious to be considered a good person.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

It might not apply to animals, but evolution applies to the premature death of humans, as well.

[Dwalin2010]

It might not apply to animals, but evolution applies to the premature death of humans, as well.

Maybe it's because humans have their free will and if they really wanted to, they could stop the internal fighting. As for them being eaten by animals, you have a point, but I think that maybe evolution was originally supposed to be different or something (sounds stupid, but still a possibility). After all, it's considered by Christian religion that on a certain point because the action of Satan everything changed.

Don't know, probably my logic has flaws, but I don't even know the Bible to the letter, I wasn't raised as religious, have become one only as a teenager.

[Esau of Isaac]

Wtf? How many times do I have to refer you back to my posts?

That doesn't answer my question. How is it cherrypicking to determine which passages are metaphorical and which are literal? Are you saying that in reading different texts there are no signs that exist that let you know which are stories and which are meant to be taken as factual?

There is one argument which I think is rational. The argument that there is a necessary being that must exist for the universe to exist. But this necessary being does not have to be God at all.

Why is it necessary for a being to have existed for the universe to exist?

It might not apply to animals, but evolution applies to the premature death of humans, as well.

What?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[pinkbubblegum]

That's what the religious people do. Faith over logic.

If you know this then asking to rationalize religion is almost impossible, when religion itself isn't the most rational thing out there.

People use religion as a source of strength in times of hardship, without knowing if or when things will get better. Just that they will.

People pray because despite the lack of proof, they believe there is an entity out there willing to listen to all of their problems. For some people, it's already enough to know that there will always be someone there who will be more than willing to just sit and patiently listen as well as unconditionally love you. I honestly believe that knowledge gives people some strength to trudge on.

At the very core of it, religion is asking a person to believe in something they cannot prove. Not a very rational course of action.

[Espinosa]

From what do you know it should be taken literally?

Read it in context, and try to propose an informed alternative that would not contradict the spirit of the rest of the scripture.

My issue with trying to derive your own meaning out of things is that it's subjective. You have no evidence to conclusively prove that your assumption is correct, regardless of how strong your beliefs are.

We have a thing known as 'common sense', and 2 uninterrupted millenia of studies and disputes. You seem to find of misusing the term 'reason' yourself.

Let's say you knew for sure that New Zealand existed, and that countless numbers of people have talked about New Zealand's existence. So you have subjective assurance that New Zealand exists. And let us also assume that it is not within your power to visit New Zealand, so you cannot objectively assure yourself of New Zealand's existence. Does it follow that your interpretation of New Zealand's objective truth is real? No. You don't know for sure if New Zealand exists despite countless numbers of people telling you so. They could be deceiving you.

The issue with your metaphorical assumptions of certain passages in the Bible remains. You cannot conclusively prove that your assumptions are true, for there is no evidence that they are.

You cannot go back and re-live the events described in any ancient book, sure enough. But according to similar logic, copies of ancient texts are all you have left of other historical events and persons. Somebody like Plato or Aristotle is less likely to have existed compared to Jesus by virtue of original texts remaining, for example. Don't think anybody with any common sense would deny them as real people who impacted the Western culture. Yours is a position of solipsism, and has nothing to do with either empiricism or 'reason' (your own word). Similarly, a religious person is in a more privileged position towards acquiring spiritual experience than somebody unable to travel from distance, as religion isn't based upon physical contact between two material beings (though plenty of folk occasionally declare themselves the second coming of Jesus and start destructive cults - not the usual case nevertheless).

A religious person does not want to come to the conclusion you have come to. If free will is the ability to choose between good and the lack thereof, then presumably neanderthals and homo erectus, etc. can do the same. Modern humans alone were created in God's image, not Homo erectus. So while you claim that our ancestors do have free will, a religious person does not want to say this.

Similarly to how secular people are often uninterested in religion and truth-seeking (you for instance and you haven't done your homework for this discussion), religious people shouldn't be expected to examine every problem of religion and/or science. The general position towards mostly anything (besides beer and football) is superficiality and indifference. Also cite me one documented case of a religious figure/secular philosopher denying the presence of free will on any stage of our evolution. Doesn't have to be in English.

You don't have to be one thing or another, of course, unless you're a purely rational robot. But is it rational to be somewhere in between? No. Can you conclusively prove that your cherrypicked message is metaphorical? Literal? No. Therefore you can't be rationally somewhere in between. You have to be one or the other.

I understand you've never tried your hand at understanding the Bible, but surely you must've read some poetry. If you hadn't forgotten what you'd read there, you wouldn't be asking bizarre questions and making bizarre statements.

Of course, you can choose to be irrational. That's what the religious people do. Faith over logic.

I hate to be blunt, but you're not the person to speak out as a representative of 'logic' or 'reason'. No offence, but these rationalisations are detached from reality and lead to serious errors.

[Chiki]

Read it in context, and try to propose an informed alternative that would not contradict the spirit of the rest of the scripture.

We have a thing known as 'common sense', and 2 uninterrupted millenia of studies and disputes. You seem to find of misusing the term 'reason' yourself.

I agree my example was too extreme. While it was a perfectly valid philosophical example of the skeptical argument, it was far too strong and it did not apply to a practical context. Doubting that New Zealand exists is definitely going into the realm of philosophical skepticism; that is, it is not the same as being skeptical about an optical illusion, for example.

Now, let me "read it in context." Let me present you a practical example that applies to common sense and viewing something in context, but still does not give you proof of the answer.

Let us say I lived in the Amazon and I went hunting with a tribesman who spoke a language that I could not understand. We came across a white rabbit, which he pointed to and shouted "gavagai!" He then proceeded to throw his spear into the rabbit and kill it.

What does the word gavagai mean? It probably means rabbit or food or kill that thing, right? After all, he pointed to the rabbit. But he could also mean a never seen before creature; he could also mean something that is furry and white; he could really mean anything we have no idea about.

What do we get from this example? According to this example, we can't know what the person intended to say. We can't know what he really meant. Even though I think he said rabbit, and common sense would dictate that he means rabbit or food, he could have been intending to say something else entirely, that is not within the realm of impossibility. He could have meant "I've never seen that before!" He could have meant "I'm schizophrenic!"

You have no evidence for your claim; that is, you cannot prove that your translation is the right one. It's that simple.

I hate to be blunt, but you're not the person to speak out as a representative of 'logic' or 'reason'. No offence, but these rationalisations are detached from reality and lead to serious errors.

I received a certificate in logic which includes taking graduate-level formal logic courses, when I was 19. I'm far more qualified than anyone here.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Olwen

[dondon151]

I received a certificate in logic which includes taking graduate-level formal logic courses, when I was 19. I'm far more qualified than anyone here.

it looks like all that is needed for a certificate in logic is an inability to admit the existence of shades of grey and a certain amount of intellectual elitism. knowing computer science with a touch of philosophy doesn't practically make one more effective at communicating an argument.

proving that the religious value faith over logic is affirming nothing new. that's basically the definition of a religion.

[Espinosa]

Now, let me "read it in context." Let me present you a practical example that applies to common sense and viewing something in context, but still does not give you proof of the answer.

Let us say I lived in the Amazon and I went hunting with a tribesman who spoke a language that I could not understand. We came across a white rabbit, which he pointed to and shouted "gavagai!" He then proceeded to throw his spear into the rabbit and kill it.

What does the word gavagai mean? It probably means rabbit or food or kill that thing, right? After all, he pointed to the rabbit. But he could also mean a never seen before creature; he could also mean something that is furry and white; he could really mean anything we have no idea about.

What do we get from this example? According to this example, we can't know what the person intended to say. We can't know what he really meant. Even though I think he said rabbit, and common sense would dictate that he means rabbit or food, he could have been intending to say something else entirely, that is not within the realm of impossibility. He could have meant "I've never seen that before!" He could have meant "I'm schizophrenic!"

You have no evidence for your claim; that is, you cannot prove that your translation is the right one. It's that simple.

Beautiful story, but it should indeed be possible to find out what was said by becoming a full member of that community and learning its language. Similarly, it is possible to discover the meanings conveyed in the scripture by studying all the relevant materials that help shed light unto the historical context, linguistic issues of translation and so forth. We're not pressured to translate something right at this very moment, and taking our time is the only way to make sense out of something.

I received a certificate in logic which includes taking graduate-level formal logic courses, when I was 19. I'm far more qualified than anyone here.

A valuable skill may go to waste if not properly applied. Formal logic becomes useless if you quickly and superficially get your teeth into something without thoroughly examining the material first.

[Esau of Isaac]

You have no evidence for your claim; that is, you cannot prove that your translation is the right one. It's that simple.

So we have academics which can pick apart these tomes, we have schools of thought which dissect each story and categorize it down to a school, we can say which story refers to what and why because of the use of language and vocabulary, but you're saying we have no ability to discern because it's all subjective. What a load of shit.

I received a certificate in logic which includes taking graduate-level formal logic courses, when I was 19. I'm far more qualified than anyone here.

If only you'd gotten a certificate in knowing what you're talking about too.

Nevermind that you mislabel others' use of basic fallacies like it's going out of style, a piece of paper doesn't prove you're the most logical one here.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Tamanoir]

Once again, Religion and Science doesn't have to oppose each others, because they absolutely doesn't concern the same domain.

Things will be far better than both of them if they stopped arguing and stepping on the other field.

(I should definitely copy past this and post it every time...)

Science explains how the world works, Religion explains how you should live onthis world. If you want to oppose religion, go read Nietzsche (Actually, this is always a good advice, I should revise my philosophers one day or another...)

Also, claiming that human beings are purely rational... is absolutely stupid...

Can someone details the view of religion on free will ? I thought religion was pretty opposed to the concept, even if she consider it exists...

Free will in itself isn'ty something that have been entirely proved. Or if you refuse any middle ground, you may say it absolutely doesn't exists...

Believing in FreeWill is a faith. It's needed for us to be able to live our live, but wether it's real or not isn't something you can totamlly prove.

Also, can I ask you how you see your religious instiutions ? Do you think they hold the truth, or do you examine what they have to say. I mean, even the Pope is still a human, right ? So, he can fall like everyone... (Or is it blasphemous ? While I don't hold any grief against faith, my wiew of theChurch is pretty negatively tainted. I really can't stand hypocrisy...)

[Guy Starwind]

Everytime I hear things about logic I think of this:

Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.

-Second Doctor

Edited May 20, 2013 by Guy Starwind

[Chiki]

Beautiful story, but it should indeed be possible to find out what was said by becoming a full member of that community and learning its language. Similarly, it is possible to discover the meanings conveyed in the scripture by studying all the relevant materials that help shed light unto the historical context, linguistic issues of translation and so forth. We're not pressured to translate something right at this very moment, and taking our time is the only way to make sense out of something.

A valuable skill may go to waste if not properly applied. Formal logic becomes useless if you quickly and superficially get your teeth into something without thoroughly examining the material first.

*sigh* you clearly don't understand the example. It is not important what exactly the word means. The word probably means exactly what we predicted. All it proves is that, at the time, you cannot know the meaning of that word for certain. What evidence do you have that your meaning is correct? Similarly, what evidence do you have that allows you to know the intentions of the writer?

The Bible is a more interesting case. You can find out the real meaning in the aforementioned "gavagai" case by learning the language. But you can never find out the real meaning behind the Bible, for the writers are dead. In the end, all you can do with the Bible is make empty conclusions about how your derivation of meaning is the correct one. But it can never be conclusive, for the evidence will always be based on context alone (such as the above example on going hunting, it probably means rabbit or food). It will never be definite.

The examples prove that the only conclusive way is to find the meaning is to go into the head of the writer / sayer. Can you make a guess as to what it means? Certainly--but in the end it's all probable and nothing more. Can you deny that? Are you really arrogant enough to claim that your interpretation is correct for sure?

Can you give me one piece of evidence which conclusively establishes that, for example, one random text is metaphorical or literal? Any real example will do.

Oh no, it's still applied. I'm still 19.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

*sigh* you clearly don't understand the example. It is not important what exactly the word means. The word probably means exactly what we predicted. All it proves is that, at the time, you cannot know the meaning of that word for certain. What evidence do you have that your meaning is correct?

How do you know the meaning of any of the words that we have been discussing in this topic?