Dharma

Let's see, I'm from outside the, ahem, "judeo-Christian" tradition and this is how I saw it when I first read the Old Testament stories:

How is the belief that the Eve was created from Adam's rib and that the world was created in 7 days and that God needed to rest a more "plausible" story ?

How is the fact that only the Biblical myth represents humanity as hopeless compulsive liars -- Adam and Abraham, make it more plausible? -- one would think a record of lying would make something less plausible.

However, that is a logical look at myths in the literal sense -- something the religious "faithful" never get much credit for.

Biff the unclean

Huh? What? That's not an answer. He's asking what standard you use. How do you measure the relative credibility of two groups traditions?

CJD

You'd rather take the long way around, I suppose. But it's much simpler than all this. My fundamental presupposition in life is that life itself is filled with intention; that is, we are not a result of atoms randomly smacking into one another. The former, for me, is more plausible. Maybe the latter is for you?

CJD

CJD

"Standard"? I wish it were so easy ... Look, I've alluded several times already to how reality is socially constructed (at least from our perspectives). The best I can come up with is reason and tradition. When one is loyal to a community, indeed, to a person, that one will tear down every stronghold that sets itself up in order to find a reasonably stable place to stand.

Coming out on the other side of relativity, only plausibility exists.

CJD

rob117

To Johnnyskeptic:

I was under the impression that whether or not Abraham existed is irrelevant to the discussion. I do not believe the Abraham story is anything more than a myth, but that's not what's being discussed. What Hinduwoman asked, I gather, is why, according to the story, was Abraham chosen? It's kind of a hypothetical question.

The Bible itself gives no explanation for why Abraham was chosen, probably because either a)questioning God's decisions was not done(as is the case throughout the Bible) or b)the author was recounting a well-known tradition that most of his readers already knew.

The midrashic tradition about the idols is late, but that's the only one that's extant.

DaMan121

Lets assume that a false "tradition / belief" will not survive becuase its not 'plausible' - so ancient religions are not plausible since they died out and nobody believes in them anymore, your still left with dozens of conlicting traditions that have stood over the years. So which one is right? Or are they all right? For the record I dont actually believe in my initial premise.

Chaupoline

The metaphysics of the Bible is a fantastic story. However, there are a lot of holes in the story. Archaeologists will periodically find a stash of old manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls. I used to wonder why Noah was chosen out of all humanity to survive the flood. When I read the Book of Enoch it made a little bit more sense. It made the Bible even more fantastic but at least the holes were cleared up a bit in the story.

I don't know if the Bible is true, but I really don't know if it isn't true either. I just know that now, the fantastic is not really observable. That doesn't discount it though.

Biff the unclean

This is still not an answer. You said that certain traditions are more plausible than others and that is what makes one group’s traditions more credible than another group’s traditions. So you must have some standard that separates the plausible from the implausible if you are claiming that your traditions are (more) plausible

Sorry, gibberish doesn’t impress me.
Tell me what your standards are for comparing traditions. Your first paragraph seems to say that you judge not by how plausible a tradition is but by your loyalty to a given community. That would be intellectually dishonest. But your language is so convoluted that maybe I’m reading you wrong.
Your bio says you are into Trinitarian theism…fine let’s compare that tradition. The Catholics have the tradition of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Classical Pagans (Dionysian) have an older tradition of the Father (Zeus), Son (Dionysus) and Holy Ghost. What makes one more plausible than the other?

Chaupoline

Why is this intellectually dishonest? You have stated that the diffrrent religions are all somewhat similar. Why would it then be intellectually dishonest to back the hometown flavor? You back the metaphysics of your community and then adhere to a system of ethics that appeals to your reason.

CJD

Biff, even the so-called "standard" is a social construction. I assume there is an absolute standard, but I don't get to use it when making such decisions about competing traditions. All I know is, you're not privy to it either.

Pseudo-intellectualism doesn't impress me. Get off your high-horse.

Instead of assuming its convoluted, why can't you assume that you're just thick-headed?

I am hardly intellectually dishonest. If you can't agree with what I'm saying, then your the one being dishonest (unkowingly, of course). Sartre called it "bad faith" (scroll down; this article may be more palpable). I am publicly admitting that I do not take my tradition for granted. What bothers you is that you think you have done the same thing, and here is someone claiming to have done the same thing AND come out on the other side retaining his adherence to a religion. Absolutely runs smack in the face of everything you build yourself up to be.

No, I don't like that game. How about this one? On the one hand, the smallest particles of energy are moving in an ordered and deliberate manner. Eventually, through evolution (or whatever) the physical universe comes to be in the form it now is. On the other hand, the smallest particles of energy are moving in a chaotic manner. Through the random collision of these particles, the universe comes to be in the form it now is. I think the former is more plausible, because I am unable to get my mind around an 'uncaused' cosmos.

CJD