rbumbalough... to our little piece of insanity on the net.

Would you care to pop along to HERE and introduce yourself??

Welcome Rob. As Neko said, please make yourself at home and introduce yourself.

(January 16, 2012 at 11:01 pm)rbumbalough Wrote: Number one would be more appropriately worded if it directly invited the Bible inerrantist to step outside. Why taunt if the goal is to engage in reasoned dialogue? Getting Bible inerrantists to accept and own number two is a laudable goal. However, since evangelical and fundamentalist faiths function as Shibboleths guarding doorways into particular societies enmeshed in a cultural matrix roughly identified by religious acolytes-practitioners as Western Civilization, their cultural inertia will prompt them to recoil in horror from the raw suggestion of number two.

I still can only see the two options that I offered as possibilities. The first option is for the snake handlers and believers in tongues and faith healing. Such people are do divorced from reality I don't see any way to get through to them.

The second option may be unpalatable to the moderate Christian but the magic-packed nature of Acts leaves little other option. The tale of the apostles' post-Jesus adventures are so saturated with magic and angelic intervention that the story wouldn't be recognizable without them.

Perhaps my conclusion was blunt, perhaps even rude, but politeness isn't the issue here. Is there a viable third option? If not, suger-coating the dilemma would only obfuscate the point.

For the next few paragraphs, let me state that I know you don't believe any of these arguments. I'm not arguing with you but clarifying what I would say when presenting these arguments.

Quote:a) Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization and the Renascence,

I'm always ready to call bullshit when this rewrite of history is offered. The Renascence and Age of Enlightenment weren't because of Christianity but in spite of Christianity. It was only when the monolithic power of the Catholic Church was splintered in the Reformation that intellectuals and scientists had the room to maneuver they needed. Make no mistake, the Protestants, though they were useful in offsetting the power of the Church, proved to be just as abusive and anti-intellectual as their Catholic rivals. in fact, these days the Catholics are actually more progressive in many areas.

Quote:and thus is self validating because Western Civilization is self validating;

Non sequitur. This fallacious reasoning is akin to American conservatives who note the piety of America and assume America's status as a superpower is the result of God's blessing and reward for our piety (and not, say, to a variety of worldly explanations too lengthy to go into). The spurious assumption that the Christian faith is responsible for the Renascence and Enlightenment but had no blame for the fall of Rome or the subsequent Dark Ages is a bare assertion that doesn't stand up to close examination.

However, even if it WERE true that Christianity offered a useful framework by which a society could develop a superior rational approach that led to the explosion of learning as Europe emerged from the Golden Age of Christianity (a.k.a. The Dark Ages), this would have nothing to do with the truth of Christian claims. I believe Jesus' alleged admonishment that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us is an effective basis for evaluating morality (similar to the social contract). This does not mean we can logically leap from "Jesus was right about that" to "Jesus must be God".

Positive consequences don't necessarily mean the argument is logically sound. Also, one must be careful not to assume causation is always behind correlation.

Quote:and b) that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit makes evangelical-fundamentalist-Bible inerrantist belief properly basic alleviating any need for evidentiary support.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn tells me she's not impressed by this line of reasoning.

Quote:Price presents a thorough refutation of C.S. Lewis' famous Trilemma argument. Evangelicals love the Trilemma.

I need a whole different thread to discuss the Trilemma. Putting it on the cue...

Quote:None of what I have just typed was intended as any sort of ad hominem or appeal to authority. If it comes off that way, I apologize. I generally like everyone I meet and tend to think the best of them. Many thanks to the reader and best wishes too.

No need to apologize. I understand that this medium can seem more harsh than intended and appreciate that you understand this as well. Occasionally I can be a bit rough around the edges but this is only because I see the debate as a wood chipper that ideas are tossed into. The ones that remain intact are the ones that should be embraced. I've also startled some people with my ability to turn on a dime and admit that I'm wrong and the other person is right if presented with evidence or sound arguments I hadn't heard before.

Quote:I'm always ready to call bullshit when this rewrite of history is offered. The Renascence and Age of Enlightenment weren't because of Christianity but in spite of Christianity. It was only when the monolithic power of the Catholic Church was splintered in the Reformation that intellectuals and scientists had the room to maneuver they needed. Make no mistake, the Protestants, though they were useful in offsetting the power of the Church, proved to be just as abusive and anti-intellectual as their Catholic rivals. in fact, these days the Catholics are actually more progressive in many areas.

(January 17, 2012 at 12:16 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Welcome Rob. As Neko said, please make yourself at home and introduce yourself.

Good morning. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your views and will attempt comment later.

Best Wishes and Regards

(January 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.

One of the things that lept out at me when I read the Bible cover to cover was how chock full it was of overt supernatural activity, where Yahweh apparently felt neither shyness nor concern for "free will" as he demonstrated his power in ways that could not be confused with natural coincidence. Rivers turned to blood, columns of fire killed blasphemers and Yahweh once gave a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges, chapter 1). When I put the Bible down and looked about, the universe couldn't offer a more dramatic contrast with the alternate reality depicted in the Bible. The world we know today is one dominated by natural law, where the most Yahweh can ever seem to accomplish is to appear on a piece of toast.

(Maybe he's just gotten old and feeble or perhaps finally getting laid 2000 years ago caused him to seriously mellow out). Sorry, I digress. Ignore this paragraph.

The Book of Acts takes similar flights of fancy. It goes beyond asserting that Yahweh, Jesus, angels and demons can perform miracles or work magic. Mere mortals can do the same with just enough faith. Such acts of magic include:

1. Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-14, 19:6-9)
2. Cause earthquakes (4:31)
3. Cast out demons (5:16, 8:7)
4. See God (7:55)
5. Heal Palsy (9:33-34)
6. Raise the dead (9:36-end)
7. Cause blindness (13:11)
8. Heal a crippled person (14:8-10)
9. Heal the sick (19:11-12. 28:8-9)
10. Survive poisonous snake bite (28:4-5)

Did I mention that these are not angels or Jesus doing these things but mere mortals by the power of their faith? And should I mention all the verses with Yahweh, Jesus, The Holy Spirit or various angels speak to mortals? Or overtly supernaturally act on their behalf?

One more time, it bears repeating, these were the acts of MERE MORTALS

OK, so the Christian has two choices:

1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.

2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.

And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.

DP why did you leave out so much of the book, I found plenty more in the first ten chapters. It really makes me wonder if you actually studied Acts or whether you found a site that put a few verses up and claimed that these acts were done by humans. So again I ask why did you not use the other verses in the Book of Acts.

(January 17, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: (a bunch of stuff that dodges the question)

So your answer to my question is...?

(January 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've posted before on this forum that I have the mind of a skeptic and the heart of a believer (meaning an strongly instinctive conviction that I can't seem to shake and yet also can't rationally justify). Deism is the truce my mind has made with these instincts. Maybe I'm deluded. Maybe my instincts are on to something. It's all the same anyway as long as you acknowledge we live in a natural universe, whether or not there's any enigmatic mind behind its cause.

eerie ... it's like you pulled that directly out of my head.

I've been saying that to miscellaneous people for several years now ... and very nearly word for word.

No offense, DP, but this is pretty weaksauce shit. Especially for you. All your disbelief of the miracle stories of the bible proves is that you don't believe the miracle stories of the bible. That's not exactly an "It's Miller time" moment.

Aside from that, and against my better judgement, I have to ask you about a theme you introduced but did not develop. You mentioned free will in relation to the miracle stories, presuming to allude to the contention that God's miracles are a fundamental violation of man's free will wherever they occur. Trending toward an incompatibilist position on free will myself, I have to ask what you are referring to as free will here, and in what way God's miracles are a violation of your conception of free will?

(January 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm)apophenia Wrote:

No offense, DP, but this is pretty weaksauce shit. Especially for you. All your disbelief of the miracle stories of the bible proves is that you don't believe the miracle stories of the bible. That's not exactly an "It's Miller time" moment.

No offense is ever taken from constructive criticism and I know not all my comments on religion are good ones. In this case, though, I have to say this may be a matter of taste. I say this because this is actually the thing that lept out at me the most when I read the Bible. It isn't just that I don't believe in miracles. It's the juxtaposition of the miracle-rich world of the Bible and the supernaturally tranquil universe we know.

I think, "What? Has Yahweh gotten sleepy or something? Why all the deafening fanfare back then and nothing but the sound of crickets today?"

Quote:Aside from that, and against my better judgement, I have to ask you about a theme you introduced but did not develop. You mentioned free will in relation to the miracle stories, presuming to allude to the contention that God's miracles are a fundamental violation of man's free will wherever they occur. Trending toward an incompatibilist position on free will myself, I have to ask what you are referring to as free will here, and in what way God's miracles are a violation of your conception of free will?

The reason Christians offer that Yahweh doesn't give a speech at the UN today or whatever (fill in your favorite miracle from the Bible here) is that doing so would "take away our free will to believe or not believe" (you'll have to ask them what exactly that means). Odd that Yahweh didn't have such concerns back then.

(January 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No offense is ever taken from constructive criticism and I know not all my comments on religion are good ones. In this case, though, I have to say this may be a matter of taste. I say this because this is actually the thing that lept out at me the most when I read the Bible. It isn't just that I don't believe in miracles. It's the juxtaposition of the miracle-rich world of the Bible and the supernaturally tranquil universe we know.

I think, "What? Has Yahweh gotten sleepy or something? Why all the deafening fanfare back then and nothing but the sound of crickets today?"

We likely will never again see the fundamental breaking of symmetry as happened following the big bang. That we do not observe it today is no evidence against it having occurred in the past. It is weak induction at best, a sort of "No black swans" argument that because it impinges on your subjective sense of the credibility of the text you want to raise it to the level of an objective criticism. Please cite the law or rule which allows you to deduce - not infer, but deduce - that the absence of a class of events in the present implies a lack of events of that class in the past. (And no, there is no uniformitarianism which holds for all classes of events, even if you could demonstrate that it is a law.)

On top of that, you're leaving out all questions of hemeneutics and selection bias. In this day, diagnosis of autism, ADHD and other childhood disorders is at an all time high. By your argument, this would seem to imply that the incidence of these disorders is mirrored by the frequency of diagnosis in the past and that therefore more children are developing autism, ADHD and so on now than they had in the past. This is naivety in the extreme.

(There is an article I would like to quote, but am unable to track it down. Basically, the article states that since the introduction of some of the most prescribed atypical anti-psychotics, as we move forward in time since their introduction, the clinical efficacy of these drugs as demonstrated in controlled studies is decreasing, a sort of fatigue effect for atypicals. Are the black swans disappearing here? That seems the obvious implication of the structure of your argument.)

I will likely continue to listen because I like listening to you, but in this case, I think you have none.


ps. If anyone recognizes the paper I'm referring to, from the secondary literature, please provide me with a reference.