The burden of proof; who is it on?

[Creed of Heresy]

I haven't had enough coffee yet so I haven't really let this thought congeal too well but...I have a friend who is a very devout christian. Me and him get along great, but when we debate things, one thing I have come to notice is that he gets very condescending and stuck-up with his points, usually getting very derisive of mine without actually managing to really disprove or argue them effectively. One such argument we had was over the burden of proof. He asserts that the burden of proof is upon the critics of the bible because of translation; he basically states that what is translated into modern language means something far different now from what it meant back then, and that it is on the burden of the critics to prove that it does not. I assert, via Occam's Razor, that the burden of proof is on he who is making the claim. He counters by stating that since this is an argument of rationality and plausibility and that from his standpoint the bible could technically be saying things that agree with modern science entirely but are just translated too much to be read as such [IE: taken out of context], the bible is in sync with modern understandings of the universe and that therefore it falls upon the critics to prove that it isn't.

Naturally this ended with him entering circular logic which resulted in the debate part of my brain moving into a fatal feedback logic-error loop that would have killed me if I was a computer, but it DID make me think, at least a little. Who IS the burden of proof on? COULD the bible be mistranslated, or overly translated, resulting in a loss of the understanding and context of the words? Could it have possibly been saying things that we now understand today to be scientific fact or at least extremely likely?

Or am I right in assuming that since the earliest believers in the scripts believed the shit that is in the fitting context of the current translations, it WAS saying what it says to this day even back then? IE the earth is flat; this was the commonly accepted norm and was reinforced by the bible and pentateuch which is why up until Christopher Columbus the earth remained to be thought of as flat. This makes far more sense than his argument [by MY perspective only, however; which is why I'm submitting it to you guys for your opinions, lest I am wrong in my assumptions], which is him saying, basically, that the bible talked about evolution, the earth being round, revolving around the sun, and the sun technically moving through space in its earliest, original language but over time the meaning of the words has become muddled. Whereas mine is basically saying that since the earliest followers, those of its ORIGINAL language, believed the earth was stationary, flat, the sun circled it, and had a physical firmament, and had "foundations," and that this is proven by the fact that throughout history this was commonly accepted as "fact" until science disproved it over the course of the second half of the second millenium ADE, that therefore the bible did NOT ever say anything that current science now shows us to be true.

Thoughts, anyone?

[The Grand Nudger]

The biblical account is perfectly in accordance with other accounts of the time. Wrong for the same reasons. What you're hearing are excuses arising out of a better understanding of the subject and a need to shoehorn the text into reality. The biblical narrative of genesis was the best science of it's time, it seemed very intelligent to the various authors and editors of the text. A great many other claims made therein have similar origins.

[Faith No More]

Long story short, the bible says whatever the reader wants it to.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the hallmark of excellent fiction, a story that bends to imagination over a great many generations. The mind will often supply the details better than the author ever could.

[thesummerqueen]

Considering we have such an access to world-wide sets of linguists with varying biases and levels of expertise and anthropological backgrounds, I'd say the translations we are seeing of the Bible are the best we have to date - not to mention the supplementary material put out from new translations of other biblical age sources.

It's a special pleading argument and it doesn't work.

[Creed of Heresy]

Alright, I figured as much, but it was one of those things that, at least for a moment, gave me pause. Something like that happens, I always feel the need to ensure that I'm not the only one coming to that conclusion, lest I am wrong [which I have been many times before and will be many times again].

The sad thing is he's a very intelligent fellow. Or...at least...he has the capacity to be intelligent, but he wastes his intelligence on very stupid things. I also find his "conversion" to be very...convenient.

To explain: He claims to have been rock-climbing, when his security equipment failed and he fell 30 feet. He claims he was saved by a "beautiful man with blonde hair and bright blue eyes who merely smiled at [him] and then departed." To went on further to claim that no other witnesses saw this man, only him.

My next question would be...should I grill him on this subject? The logical inconsistencies are fairly numerous, but I fear I might insult him. On the other hand, I might also make him think about what he is saying, too. Or on the mutated extra third hand, he might just be lying to validate his faith to someone who is clearly not going to take "I just believe just because" as a valid reason [le me derping at the computer on AIM]. I'm mostly apprehensive because, again, might lose him as a friend, and also largely because if I push the matter too hard, I risk being not unlike how much Christians are; shoving their beliefs in others faces. Or in my case; shoving "nothing" in their face.

[thesummerqueen]

People can be very intelligent and unable to distinguish between their fantasy life and reality. Fantasy prone personalities are major contributors to the alien abduction movement.

[Creed of Heresy]

People can be very intelligent and unable to distinguish between their fantasy life and reality. Fantasy prone personalities are major contributors to the alien abduction movement.

I wonder...

You know...it occurs to me I know next to nothing about his childhood. In some roundabout, subtle, possibly manipulative way, I should see if I can learn some bits and pieces about it, see if I can find evidence to link him to being FPP. I can assume that if I can he'll deny it up and down but maybe I can persuade him, gently, to at least give psychological evaluation by a professional a chance. I know most people with FPP generally function well, but...

I dunno. I'm curious now. He does seem to have a fairly active imagination, and there ARE some elements of his personality not very different from mine, indicative of childhood trauma.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or perhaps it's just garden variety human crazy. IOW, working as intended. Remember, crazy isn't a bug, it's a feature. What do you think you'd see if you fell 30 feet? Apparently, when he fantasizes, he sees beautiful men (maybe he ought to explore that, lol).

As a somewhat related aside, isn't it amusing that we so often seem to see beautiful angels, beautiful depictions of prophets, but rarely ugly or disfigured ones? We reserve that for demons, for heretics. Most of those in the pews here in the US picture a gorgeous northern european jesus, fit and attractive with flowing slightly curly hair, piercing eyes, and perfectly straight teeth. The kind of guy guys want to be and girls want to :ahem:, be with. We just can't seem to help ourselves, can we? We sing about being in his arms, being held in his love, feeling his touch, etc.

[Voltair]

I wouldn't bother grilling him on that angelic figure appearance. It will just end up with you questioning his perception of reality and I don't think it will lead anywhere productive. His idea that the Bible is just translated into more modern knowledge is a flawed attempt to reconcile the Bible with reality. Ten years from now if some other astounding scientific discovery is made someone else will try to make it out to say the Bible talked about that too.

His idea that the Bible talks about evolution is completely off base too unless there are some "magical" passages I haven't read. If you haven't read Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in my garage example I suggest you Google it. Next time you run into him give him that example. Something that is also unfortunate is while you may have great discussions with people about religion they have to be willing to actually consider the idea it could be wrong first. I think one of the best thing someone can do to try and prove the truth of ideas such is this is to try as hard as they can to disprove it.

After all if God is really behind it, if it is really so obvious etc, shouldn't it stand up to scrutinizing investigation? You could try offering him that challenge.