Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

I think you've written a clear and concise summary of a myth or just-so story which is very popular these days. It provides a decent description of some people in some times and places, and ignores huge swaths of history. 

Naturally it seems like the best just-so story to modern people, because it's ours. But I think it projects our own concerns and methods onto people whose concerns and methods were very different. It also seems to imply a telos to human thought, which I'm not sure is justified. The idea that the goal of our thinking is primarily to provide an accurate description of a truth that's "out there," independent of mind, is not the only way of approaching things. Many aspects of religion work differently. 

I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.

I agree, it is a just-so story. This is because we are talking about what ancient man was thinking, what the earliest thoughts of ancient man was and they simply did not record it, there is no archeological evidence, there is no video tape showing what early life was like. There are some cave painting but they give very limited info as to what humans were thinking.

So, I am plugging that gap in our knowledge with some logic.

---

For example, if I were to say, that ancient man had a need to communicate, so they started to make sounds. Eventually, those sounds were accepted by the group. Each new kid that is born, grows up learning that sound and understands the meaning. This would be the beginning stages of language evolution and all cultures went through that process.
It is a basic human need. If some tribe doesn’t have a language, it would mean they didn’t have talented individuals in their group and their lack of language will always held back their culture.

Then someone comes along and says, that is a just-so story.
Of course it is a just-so story but you think there are human tribes who don’t communicate and they don’t have a need to communicate?

Having the Big Questions is part of a basic need for humans.

“I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.”

==Why stuff exist and why we exist are a couple of the big questions. When you try to answer these questions, when you try to develop a story about the steps that the god goes through, it is going to come into conflict with the Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.
When primitive man develops an answer to those questions, I am calling that the “science” of ancient people.

I do not expect any primitive culture to ask questions such as:
What is the smallest life form?
What would be its size?
How should we invent a microscope and what is a microscope and let’s go and observe the smallest structures of plant life.
What is a metal?
How should we make copper and what is copper? We haven’t even seen copper but there must be something like copper?
What is polyethylene? Are we ever going to discover how to make polyethylene? Will the gods ever show us?
One day, Jesus will be born and will talk to us about radioactivity. What is that and how did I come up with that word?


A few of those Big questions, such as Why does stuff exist and why do I exist, is going to create a point of contact with old time religions and modern science.


The rest of the Bible?
Read Luke 3:23.
It gives the complete lineage. It says that Adam is the son of the jewish god and continues all the way to Jesus.

^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.


More specifically, look at
Luke 3:28 KING JAMES VERSION
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.


Read 1 Chronicles 1:1
This is a list again. Notice that it starts with Adam.

1 Chronicles 1:1 KING JAMES VERSION
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, {1:2} Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,

^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.


Exodus 20:8 KING JAMES VERSION
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. {20:9} Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: {20:10} But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {20:11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

^^^^^The six day creation story is present in the 10 commandments.
Again, this is evidence that jews believed that the universe/earth combo was literally created in 6 days.


Luke 22:70 KING JAMES VERSION
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

^^^^^In the above case, the idea is that Jesus is also a direct creation from the jewish god, just like Adam is a direct creation.
The idea is that when you are a direct creation, you are sinless until you commit a sin.
If you commit a sin, your descendants are considered to carry the same sin to the 3 rd or 4 th generation or forever.


John 3:16 KING JAMES VERSION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

^^^^^This line is wrong. Jesus is not the only son. The jewish god has 2 sons: Adam and Jesus.
Unless if begat means sexual reproduction. Maybe someone can explain it to me?


Luke 17:26 KING JAMES VERSION
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

^^^^^For Jesus, Noah and the story that goes along with it is real.


Luke 17:27 KING JAMES VERSION
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. {17:28} Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; {17:29} But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. {17:30} Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

^^^^^Noah and his guys were eating, drinking, marrying women. Then they got on the boat.
For Jesus, Lot was a real guy too and sulfur and fire rained from heaven on Sodom.
Jesus says the same thing is going to happen. When humans learn that he is the son of man (or god), an apocalypse is going to start. It will start in year 33 CE or around that time.

---

Administrator Notice
Let's be aware that some people are viewing the forum on their phones and walls of text are better shortened with the use of "hide" tags.

I think you're continuing the argument that everything in the Bible or other holy texts has to be read literally. 

There have been lots of Christians in history who don't agree with that. Both Jesus and Paul used Old Testament stories allegorically, which means that the important meaning for them was not the literal one. If they even believed the literal meanings, which we don't know. You assume they took it all literally because you are reading all the passages you quote literally. But a person can say "You'd better not do that or you're going to end up like Darth Vader" without thinking that Darth Vader is real. 

Augustine was clear that, in his opinion, not every part of the Bible should be read as literal fact. He says that Christians shouldn't get attached to interpretations that may turn out to be wrong. And when you say "They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond." This is exactly the opposite of what he concluded. He rejected the idea of a six-day creation and decided it was more likely that the world appeared in a single instant. (He also argued that it doesn't make sense to ask "where was God before creation?" because before creation there would be no time. I think it's very likely that the Reverend Georges Lemaître knew of this -- he was another Christian who didn't feel the need for a literal reading.) 

I understand that there have been a lot of Christians in history, and a lot of them are guilty of what you accuse them of. But I think that Jesus, Paul, and Augustine were fairly important in the history of Christianity, and they don't do what you say.

As for why the authors of the Bible didn't ask "What is metal?", I think it's because they were more interested in how we can be good people. Socrates also made this choice. He thought there was no point in improving our alloys if we are just going to use them for bad reasons. 

And of course here we're just talking about Christianity -- far from all of religion. Buddhists, for example, believe that while our world may have a beginning and an ending, that we are part of a multiverse that didn't begin. So within the phenomenon of religion, there are a number of views. Kōbō Daishi also didn't address any metallurgical issues because his mind was on other things.

As for what religion is for, and what kind of knowledge people are seeking, I think that Richard Rorty's book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is really good on this issue. He certainly doesn't ask us to believe any religious stories, but he also sees the stories and metaphors people use as being separate from a desire for objective knowledge of the physical world.