FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-17-2001, 03:00 PM   #11
nescio
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brooklyn-NYC-USA
Posts: 353
Wink

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SingleDad:
That the sun rose this morning in the east is a fact: You would doubt the sanity of anyone who contradicted it.
</font>
I contradict it. The sun just sits there and the Earth turns to reveal it. The sun is not actually "rising."

You can doubt my sanity for this, but I assure you there are many better reasons to doubt my sanity.

Nit-pickingly yours,
nescio
nescio is offline  
Old 01-17-2001, 07:37 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Actually, one could call that a conclusion!

A fact is what we see. I see the sun rising. That's the fact. I see the planets moving around in the sky, those are facts. That there is a better coordinate system (heliocentrism) to efficiently describe the motion of the planets is a conclusion.

From the "obvious" factual geocentric coordinate system the earth is indeed motionless, the sun does rise and the planets do move in elaborate bizarre curves in the sky. It's a great coordinate system for explaining our facts. It's just a terrible one for predicting the motion of the planets.

Even more nitpickingly yours...
 
Old 01-18-2001, 01:00 PM   #13
nescio
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brooklyn-NYC-USA
Posts: 353
Wink

SD-

I just wanted to point out that saying the sun rises is a geocentric anachronism which people still use even though they know about the Earth's turning, etc. I missed your points about observation the first time. That's why I don't post much.

nescio

p.s. Frankly, I don't know where you and some of the other people here get the time and stamina to keep multiple threads in multiple forums going all at once. I read much more than I post.
nescio is offline  
Old 01-19-2001, 08:26 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Pure ego, my know-nothing friend!
 
Old 01-19-2001, 12:16 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mpartyka:
In either case, I am speaking in terms of what I believe to be absolutely true, independently of what I believe.</font>
What??? Did everyone miss this, or am I just misunderstanding what Mike just said? Mike...you're speaking in terms of what you believe, independantly of what you believe?
 
Old 01-19-2001, 12:41 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ah, I think Mike was just overloading "believe" in a non-obvious way. I read the statement as, "I am speaking in terms of what I understand to be absolutely true, independently of my opinion."
 
Old 01-19-2001, 01:49 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Aaah, okay...got it.
 
Old 01-19-2001, 02:35 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mpartyka:
In either case, I am speaking in terms of what I believeto be absolutely true, independently of what I believe.
</font>
Your speaking of what you believe independant of what you believe? That's what you just said.

I'm not understanding how singledads attempt to clarify helps much, but I'm willing to learn... ?

At any rate, I think you have a misunderstanding of "fact" and "faith." I'm with singledad on that. Very few Christians would deny it is most assuredly a matter of FAITH. Hence, "Christian FAITH."

I think you are assuming that acknoledging it as a faith claim weakens it. I don't think that is necessarily so. I hold many beliefs, and further more, I believe they are RIGHT. But I cannot conclusively and irrefutably prove them all to be so, so there's some faith involved. Hopefully its a reaonable and well grounded faith, but ti is faith just the same. But you can't use "facts" as you are attempting to use it, without redefining the english language.

Andrew



[This message has been edited by Captain Bloodloss (edited January 19, 2001).]
 
Old 01-20-2001, 05:48 AM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Captain Bloodloss:

At any rate, I think you have a misunderstanding of "fact" and "faith." I'm with singledad on that. Very few Christians would deny it is most assuredly a matter of FAITH. Hence, "Christian FAITH."

Not only do we have a semantic tangle of "fact" and "faith" in the popular mind, there is the problem of Christianity in general and the gospel accounts in particular.

Christianity stakes its claim on as revealed message from history. The gospel accounts, as most mainline scholars now admit, are not biography in the modern secular sense but are instead a complex blend of fact and fiction. They are faith statements which emerged from various communities' experience of the words and deeds of one man (here I am taking the position that Jesus actually existed).

Given the fact that most people were not allowed to read the Bible before Luther, and that most evangelicals today are technically literate but often read with inattention and to confirm their own prejudices, it is no wonder that we have a serious problem of biblical literacy today.

But illiteracy is not confined to the Bible!

Don't forget Jay Leno's taking to the streets like Diogenese with his lantern to show uncomprehending citizens pictures of Dick Cheney or some other governmental figure and trying to find some popular wisdom....

Was it John Stuart Mill who said that not all conservative people are stupid, but most stupid people tend to be conservative?

Illiteracy of any kind is a comfortable place to be. The only way I can know this is that I've seen that comfort creeping in from time to time in my own life. It's safe and comfortable, but what saves me is that I still need to keep taking the garbage out.
 
Old 01-20-2001, 08:27 AM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SingleDad:
Scientists, even professional scientists, are considerably more lax about philosophy than philosophers, even amateur philosophers such as we.

Philosophically, I think it makes sense to separate facts from conclusions based on the directness of the knowledge. Strictly speaking, I would not call the existence of the atom a fact, rather it is an extremely persuasive scientific conclusion. Rutherford's actual experimental data constitute the facts.

Likewise even the most esoteric and noise-filled collider data constitute "facts", even though they may be noisy and uncertain and their implications far from obvious. They are very weak facts; sometimes they can suggest only ways in which to improve the measurement apparatus.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited January 16, 2001).]
</font>
Science is philosophy: it is split off the main branch of "regular" philosophy. Science is natural philosophy- the pursuit of knowledge through observable reactions. Science has proven itself through :well, your looking at it know: computers/monitors/chemistry/atom bombs/ etc. Scientists engage in philosophy whenever they pursue a new theory: they rigorously try to prove the theory with observable results. Scientists are the greatest philosophers. The atom has been proven too exist by experimental data of 1000's of experiments, Falsifiable experiments mind you! That you cannot perceive atoms without help is a fact. If is name something that occurs over and over again in my experiments, with NO deviation in the results an atom, it is an atom, and its existence is proven by the fact that I get the same results every time I attempt to influence it. The simple fact is: I am a man, my power is to observe, and to name/describe the phenomena I observe, and to replicate the phenomena I observe by recreating the exact conditions under which I observed the phenomena. I name the phenomena I observe, and describe it to other men so that they can observe the phenomena, and possibly use that same phenomena to their advantage. That is the essence on Natural Philosophy. Either science is correct, or the Devil is making all technology and tricking us into thinking we made it .

There are those that say philosophers are those who try to understand reality through mainly theoretical rather than demonstrable insites. Note(how I SPELL): DEMONstrate means to prove- so Christianity has the right to fear proof. This branch of philosophy includes religion and speculation on the nature of God and man. All philosophy, or thought, remains speculation until proven correct. I feel that the truest group of philosophers are the scientists, but that the 2 branches of philosophy will meet someday, when science explains that which faith has always claimed is unnecessary to explain.

My simplest thought on the matter is: unless I can feel it through opposing it (if you move with the wind, at the speed of the wind, there is no wind to you- If you move against the wind, or are still while the wind blows by, you will feel the wind on your face!! !) it is not there, or I am already part of the wind. I might say I'm not- because I do not notice it. haha. . It makes me question Christianity, and why they say god is outside of them? Maybe it is they who are wrong. Peace is not opposition to war.

L8r.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.