The Bible's Scientific Credibility

[Mikey]

Fair enough, then - perhaps I misread your intent as well. I certainly got the impression that your intent was to convince me of the wrongness of faith and the correctness of pure empiricism.

[IanKennedy]

Fair enough, then - perhaps I misread your intent as well. I certainly got the impression that your intent was to convince me of the wrongness of faith and the correctness of pure empiricism.

That seems to be a common mistake on your part. Every time this subject comes up you seem to go on the defensive, or at least that's how it comes across. Your statement here that nothing anyone can say can change your view of religion seems strangely at odds with your previous statements about how your particular faith calls on you to re-assess scripture in light of the modern world. You also seem at odds with your stated dislike for a literal interpretation of the Bible here by seeming to defend the scientific veracity of it.

[Mikey]

Hmmm. Perhaps in light of some persecution I have become defensive. However, I don't believe that the manner in which I believe is at odds with how strongly I do; nor do I think the way I interpret Scripture means that my interpretation is either invalid or apologetic. I can certainly understand how it would seem indefensible to someone who chooses to believe in the spuriousness of the Bible - but again, the attacks featured in this discussion are based on the assumption of literal fundamentalism. Since I, as you mentioned, have already decried such fundamentalism I have no such issue. BTW, if I have EVER defended the scientific veracity of the Bible - rather than pointing out how the Bible may be interpreted to coincide with science - please point out the post and I will remove myself from this forum.

[Nickswitz]

Just so everyone knows, I concede, and Rochey, I'm sorry, I did not know how close you meant by similar. So I do concede on all accounts, for the record.

[IanKennedy]

Hmmm. Perhaps in light of some persecution I have become defensive.

If anyone around here is persecuting you we need to know about it, it would be against the forum rules.

However, I don't believe that the manner in which I believe is at odds with how strongly I do; nor do I think the way I interpret Scripture means that my interpretation is either invalid or apologetic. I can certainly understand how it would seem indefensible to someone who chooses to believe in the spuriousness of the Bible - but again, the attacks featured in this discussion are based on the assumption of literal fundamentalism.

Again, attacks? Where are these attacks, I've read this discussion without being involved in it and I can't really see any attacks. I see a mild spat between you and Graham but that seemed to end peacefully and very quickly.

Since I, as you mentioned, have already decried such fundamentalism I have no such issue. BTW, if I have EVER defended the scientific veracity of the Bible - rather than pointing out how the Bible may be interpreted to coincide with science - please point out the post and I will remove myself from this forum.

At this point I have to start to wonder if there's something wrong (outside of this forum) for you at the moment. You seem very heated, in a fairly passive way, either that or I'm mis-reading your last statement. Are you really saying that if you where to defend the bible in a post here and we point it out you will quit the forum? That seems a little over the top. If there is something wrong is there something we can do to help?

[IanKennedy]

Hmmm. Perhaps in light of some persecution I have become defensive. However, I don't believe that the manner in which I believe is at odds with how strongly I do; nor do I think the way I interpret Scripture means that my interpretation is either invalid or apologetic. I can certainly understand how it would seem indefensible to someone who chooses to believe in the spuriousness of the Bible - but again, the attacks featured in this discussion are based on the assumption of literal fundamentalism. Since I, as you mentioned, have already decried such fundamentalism I have no such issue. BTW, if I have EVER defended the scientific veracity of the Bible - rather than pointing out how the Bible may be interpreted to coincide with science - please point out the post and I will remove myself from this forum.

But more on topic here, the discussion here seemed to centre around the Noah story. I can't see any way that that can be taken other than literally.

[Mikey]

If anyone around here is persecuting you we need to know about it, it would be against the forum rules.

No, no, not at all. I meant perhaps I have become somewhat defensive in light of events in my past.

Again, attacks? Where are these attacks, I've read this discussion without being involved in it and I can't really see any attacks. I see a mild spat between you and Graham but that seemed to end peacefully and very quickly.

OK, "arguments pointed against a specific viewpoint." And I wouldn't even call the discussion between Graham and I a "spat."

You seem very heated, in a fairly passive way

Did you read that?

either that or I'm mis-reading your last statement. Are you really saying that if you where to defend the bible in a post here and we point it out you will quit the forum? That seems a little over the top. If there is something wrong is there something we can do to help?

Yes, you did misread that. I said (emphasis added,) "if I have EVER defended the scientific veracity of the Bible - rather than pointing out how the Bible may be interpreted to coincide with science..." The last bit is tantamount to vernacular such as "I'll eat my hat" or somesuch.

But more on topic here, the discussion here seemed to centre around the Noah story. I can't see any way that that can be taken other than literally.

Well, I guess I can't truly and personally understand atheism any more than you could personal faith. I'm sure you can intellectually grasp how and what I believe; but you couldn't truly get a feel fro my POV as a believer. Nor could I for your viewpoint as an atheist. Neither is "right" or "wrong." The best way I can answer your statement is this - I don't look to Scripture for hsitory; I look to it for inspiration and support.

[IanKennedy]

OK, fairy nuf.

There's nothing to understand about atheism. We simply don't believe in God and more than we do in the Easter bunny, Santa Clause or the Loch Ness monster. Notice I did not say that we believe that these things do not exist. This is a subtle but very definite distinction. It's the difference between you being a Jew and you being someone who believes in every god that has ever been postulated, just in a negative way. For example you are not a believer in the non-existence of say the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Atheists simply do not consider the existence of anything there isn't good evidence for.

Just one little question what "inspiration and support" do you get from the Noah story? What's the point of it, other than if you are not good and do what I say they I will kill you and everything else on the planet.

[Mikey]

I have to admit that the story of Noah (echoed in a stunning number of mythologies, BTW) is a tough one to take positives from. Let's see - even when the world has turned to evil, it's still possible to find a righteous man; even when murderously angry, G-d forgives the species; attending to G-d, even when it leads to ridicule or ostracism, profits the individual. I think I can guess what an atheist's comments on this would be, but you asked about my takeaway.

[Vic]

It seems to me that this whole thread has been about Genesis and nothing else. How about dietary laws, if you look at them there are very valid scientific reasons to follow them. Take the injunction against eating blood, we know today that even fairly innocuous blood born disease is quite nasty. How about not eating fat, today we know that fat can be filled with toxic substances, it is one of the many ways that the body gets rid of toxins.

To me the Bible isn't about answering 'How old is the Earth?', it is about answering those questions that science cannot answer. Why do I exist? What is my purpose here? These are philosophical questions and the Bible is one big philosophical treatise.

[Mikey]

Wow, you jump right into the short-and-curlies, huh, Vic?

That's a good point, though - my old rabbi used to say that science and faith aren't at odds, because science answers "how" while faith answers "why."

[Vic]

He he, Original Sin is where I get all riled up, just idiotic. Although opinions are like ass ....um.....anu ....butts, yeah that's it , butts everybody has one. LOL

[Mikey]

... and most of them stink.

[Tsukiyumi]

...my old rabbi used to say that science and faith aren't at odds, because science answers "how" while faith answers "why."

That's one of my personal tenets as well.

[Mikey]

Rebbe Schlussel? What are you doing in Texas?!