E_muse

You too Ion. A good debate.

E_muse

Indeed it might, but there seems to be little which is new in the publicised consensus view.

I would suggest that the news is only new to those who are able to read these archeological opinions for the first time - which in fact have been around for some time.

I would suggest that the 1998 view is also informed by the consensus view, first made public in LAT in 2001.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse

This seems to raise philisophical issues.

What is the rational basis for assuming as false a claim which is a: unsupported externally or b: hard to believe?

An open mind would seem the most rational stance, willing to change in the light of new evidence.

The term extrodinary seems to say more about our subjective response to a claim than the claim itself.

Some, like yourself, consider invoking the supernatural extrodinary, whereas others would consider purely naturalistic explanations equally extrodinary or unbelievable.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why believe in extraordinary Exodus, then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM: This seems to raise philisophical issues.

What is the rational basis for assuming as false a claim which is a: unsupported externally or b: hard to believe?

What is the rational basis for assuming as true that which defies natural, observable laws AND is also hard to believe? Using this criteria, one can assume true ANYTHING he wishes to be true.


EM: An open mind would seem the most rational stance, willing to change in the light of new evidence.

You are not speaking of an "open mind" here. You are speaking of a gullible mind, one that wishes to believe the absurd, for no good reason.

EM: The term extrodinary seems to say more about our subjective response to a claim than the claim itself.

Not so. "Extraordinary" means that which is beyond the ordinary, i.e., the known, the natural.

EM: Some, like yourself, consider invoking the supernatural extrodinary, whereas others would consider purely naturalistic explanations equally extrodinary or unbelievable.

By definition, the supernatural IS exrtraordinary. Natural, by definition, is NOT extraordinary. It defies reason to believe the supernatural and not believe the natural.

rodahi

E_muse

Agreed. But then I'm not necessarily implying that something should then conversely be taken as true if it cannot be proven false.

Only evidence can tip the balance either way. My point is - can't the jury stay out?

Sometimes it seems to be a matter of where we choose to excercise our skepticism - in our own reasoning abilities or the event which we cannot reason.

I would consider myself equally gullible if I were to reject a claim simply because it were a: extrordinary and b: unsupported, or to accept something because a lot of people agree with it.

Accepted. This seems a good definition.

But what of someone for whom spiritual 'realities' are known and part of ordinary life?

What we consider ordinary relates in part to our own experience. In fact, our whole understanding of life hinges on our own individual experiences.

I would agree. The Bible seems to interrelate the natural and supernatural in such a way as to make the two almost inseperable.

The Jews seemed to see things very holistically, in contrast to the Greeks who began breaking everything down, particualarly separating the spiritual and physical.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the rational basis for assuming as true that which defies natural, observable laws AND is also hard to believe? Using this criteria, one can assume true ANYTHING he wishes to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM: Agreed. But then I'm not necessarily implying that something should then conversely be taken as true if it cannot be proven false.

Okay.

EM: Only evidence can tip the balance either way. My point is - can't the jury stay out?

I don't think I have a belief in anything for which there is no evidence--especially gods, angels, demons, ghosts, devils, witches, werewolves, fairies, trolls, vampires, etc. The ONLY way I could be convinced in the existence of any of the above would be from verifiable empirical evidence.

If there is no empirical evidence for werewolves, for example, why believe they exist?

EM: Sometimes it seems to be a matter of where we choose to excercise our skepticism - in our own reasoning abilities or the event which we cannot reason.

I honestly attempt to be consistent in my skepticism. I am as skeptical of the existence of Zeus as I am in the existence of Yahweh.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not speaking of an "open mind" here. You are speaking of a gullible mind, one that wishes to believe the absurd, for no good reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM: I would consider myself equally gullible if I were to reject a claim simply because it were a: extrordinary and b: unsupported, or to accept something because a lot of people agree with it.

Do you reject the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet who met and conversed with Moroni, an angel? Do you reject the idea that fairies exist? What criteria do you use to decide what claims should be rejected-- and are you consistent in what criteria you use and how you use it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. "Extraordinary" means that which is beyond the ordinary, i.e., the known, the natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM: Accepted. This seems a good definition.

But what of someone for whom spiritual 'realities' are known and part of ordinary life?

Have you ever considered the possibility that spirits do not exist and that people only THINK that they do--SINCE there is no evidence of them?.

EM: What we consider ordinary relates in part to our own experience. In fact, our whole understanding of life hinges on our own individual experiences.

So, if one person in a crowd of a thousand sees and speaks to an invisible and noiseless (to the crowd) entity, you are saying that there is no good reason to question the existence of that entity?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By definition, the supernatural IS exrtraordinary. Natural, by definition, is NOT extraordinary. It defies reason to believe the supernatural and not believe the natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EM: I would agree. The Bible seems to interrelate the natural and supernatural in such a way as to make the two almost inseperable.

What primitive people of thousands of years ago thought should have little or no bearing on what we think. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the evidence?

EM: The Jews seemed to see things very holistically, in contrast to the Greeks who began breaking everything down, particualarly separating the spiritual and physical.

History shows the Jews to be among the most superstitious of all ancient peoples. Read what some of the ancient historians had to say about Hebrews/Israelites/Jews.

rodahi

Ion

E_muse, we did full circle on this: Exodus, and most of the Bible in general, contains extraordinary claims, not backed-up by anything outside of the Bible, including your yesterday's link.
Why believe then, in these unsupported extraordinary claims?

Apply the same standard to the Bible, as the standard applying to any extraordinary and unsupported claim, made by a single source.

Ion

"What primitive people of thousands of years ago thought should have little or no bearing on what we think. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the evidence?".
I think we should, rodahi.

E_muse

But the Bible isn't a single source in one sense.

Once the Bible existed as separate documents.

Higher Biblical critics would also argue that single books such as Genesis, are an amalgamation of earlier texts or oral traditions.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse

In part I agree. I don't think that most people believe in something for which they have no evidence. Many would defend their faith on the basis of personal experience at least or a claimed experience of a supernatural event.

An experience of the supernatural or a sense of the supernatural seems common to man throughout his (in the generic sense) history and universal in its effect. Scientific understanding doesn't seem to be extinguishing it.

Even in the midst of scientific breakthroughs in medicine and genetics there is still a massive rise in popularity (in my culture) for alternative medicines and remedies, many of which have a spiritual element.

Supersitions seem to reflect man's longing to tap into some 'greater force' which is guiding their destiny.

When I watch the TV and see the American TV evangelists who seem to have given Christ a corporate image - given the logos a logo if you like - I see those who are monopolising on the fact that others have a spiritual hunger. Try telling them that spiritual hunger and a desire for God are unreal as they praise all the way to the bank!

I agree. People don't believe in things which they don't experience at some level.

No problem there!

The book of Mormon is purported to be a translation from some brass plates which have never been seen (except by a select minority) by a non specialist (with no linguistic training). The plates which Smith supposedly translated are not available for inspection or scrutiny by those disciplined in the field of ancient manuscript study.

Over the issue of manuscript evidence alone, the book of Mormon fails when compared to the Bible. There is more extant textual evidence for the New Testament than any other piece of ancient writing.

This doesn't prove what the Bible actually says of course.

Of course. Spiritual hunger might not relate to any objective reality - but many would struggle with this.

For example, C.S Lewis used hunger as an example of a human sensation which corresponds to a real physical need. The need points to the existence of food by which it may be met.

Lewis' critics were quick to point out that his arguement rested upon an elementary fallacy. Being hungry does not prove that there is bread at hand! However, Lewis claimed that this rebuttal missed the point by saying:

No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask questions.

An experience of God will not show up in any archeological dig!

I would suggest that people don't experience God because they read the Bible - the Bible exists because people have experienced something they call God.

In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul states the following:

This seems to suggest that the Bible will only make sense or be of use to those who have experienced God in some way.

I would say that even the Bible points this out! Much of the Old Testament is given over to warning the Israelites not to follow other gods. Throughout much of the Old Testament the people of God seem to be constantly 'ticked off' for their unfaithfulness to God and running after idols.