BDS

The notion that naturalism is the only "rational" world-view is misguided. Yes, miracles do threaten a world-view that insists that natural "laws" are immutable. However, this is hardly the only "logical" or "rational" world-view one may have.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, humans once thought that the notion that time is a constant is the only "rational" or "logical" way to look at the world. Why did we think so? Our intuition (not our "reason") told us to. We were wrong.

Natural "laws" are not made by nature -- they are made by men. They are descriptions of what we see, and predictions of what we will see. To suggest that they are immutable and eternal is to elevate man to the status once reserved for God. To suggest that those who think these man-made laws are neither immutable nor eternal are "irrational" or "illogical" is akin to accusing them of heresy. Such a belief is indeed heretical (by modern, naturalistic standards), but it is hardly irrational. My opinion: this worship of the laws we have invented -- this false Humanism -- is best avoided.

John A. Broussard

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, unless you are saying that there it is quite possible that some future scientific discovery will explain why a sun which is standing still can be made to stand still.

Is that what you are saying? Please clarify.

Thanks.

BDS

Actually, I'm just making a general comment about the use of the words "logic" and "rational". I don't much care about the technicalities of the Joshua story and its literal or non-literal interpretations.

Were I to care about them, I would suggest that 1) when the story was written, the sun was thought to move around the earth; 2) that if it stood still, it "stood still" as perceived under the belief system of the time, 3) that IF it stood still in the perception of the onlookers the miracle is enough to satisfy me; and 4) the odds that it actually stood still even in this limited way are about a googol to one.

Jayhawker Soule

And I will gladly join you in pummelling all those who reify natural "laws" and proclaim them "immutable". I've seen no one do so in this thread of course, and neither have you. How sad that someone who believes that YHWH stopped the sun and the moon in his defeat of the Amorite coalition can barely manage to tilt at strawmen. Perhaps more prayer?

funinspace

Wasn't sure if you missed this comment back in early part of this thread, so I thought I would high light it again:
Personally, I think I consider this the least irrational explanation I've ever heard. That is, beyond the Liberal Christian who simply agrees that it is fiction.

BDS

Actually, I was responding specifically to John's post (which I quoted) in which he said that belief in miracles "overturns rationality" and "overturns just about any view we would have of the logical and actual world."

So, yes, I have seen someone in this thread suggest that miracles "overturn rationality". What has overturned the rationality of your above post is unclear, but your jibe against true believers certainly misses its mark if it is aimed at me (which it would not be, if you had managed to read my posts).

aikido7

As a metaphor, the sun stopping in the sky is hardly a symbol or portent of silliness. And I do concur that much of the atheist/rational arguments against religion and inerrancy use literalism as a framework for their opposition. Nothing wrong with a literalist framework, except that it is missing something.

A primrose by a river's brim
A yellow primrose was to him,
And it was nothing more.

Some part of us can just see a primrose and nothing more. But there's more, I believe.

John A. Broussard

I answered your post in haste. I should have given it more thought and time.
I think you are mistaken about the "worship of laws." At least you are mistaken if you think that science works in that way.

One example. Newton came up with a theory of gravity. It eventually became established as a "law" because it worked. It was borne out by the facts--not because it was written in the Principia but because it was born out in experiments and by observations.

Along came an old codger (actually, he was a young codger back then) who pointed out that Newton's law wasn't universally applicable, that there were discrepancies it couldn't explain. Naturally, scientists were skeptical. It was an extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary proof. It was tested--over and over again. Relativity worked! Even so, we're still checking out some ramifications of his theories. A recent satellite launch is aimed at testing one or more of Einstein's claims.

So. Scientists (and remember there are undoubtedly exceptions among them) don't take Einstein's word for relativity. They demand proof. When someone comes along with a revision or better theory, then it will be weighed. If found wanting, it will be rejected. No worship of laws here. No saying it must be so because Albert said it was so.

Enough pronouncements for now.

John A. Broussard

Mass hallucinations are not unheard of. In any event, the bible is believed by many to be divinely inspired. If your guess is correct, then it should read, "Joshua appeared make the sun stand still."

If it read that way, I would have no quarrel with it either.

John A. Broussard

Yup. It's a neat explanation. But the reading doesn't support it. I thought I pointed out to the originator of the idea (My favorite explanation (courtesy of jdlongmire) is a time bubble around Judea for the event much like many SciFi constructs.) that the bible doesn't say a local version of the sun stood still, it says unequivocally that "the sun stood still."

It's still one of my favorite explanations, right up there with the earth suddenly stopping in its rotation.