Photocrat

Nice guy. Yes, many brands of literalism & science are incompatible. It is not necessary to be a literalist in those regards. The Pope knows this; many others realize this. I don't see why it's so difficult? Why must a literal understanding of everything be assumed? Are we dishonest when, reading that someone is "hungry enough to eat a horse" we merely understand them to be hungry, rather than expecting them butcher their steed immediately? I mean no disrespect to this guy; he seems like a nice fellow, but I only see literalism presupposed, not established.

By what reasoning do we arrive at the conclusion that the Bible must be absolutely literal or not true at all? That's an old rhetorical trick--the strawman. I can do the same thing with the atheist position [it's a belief in unbelief! you're not a true atheist unless you hold a positive belief in an unprovable version of a universal negative! BTW, *I* get to define God; so you can't counter with another strawman! :] It doesn't prove anything.

BTW, didn't Jefferson try that sort of censoring with his Bible, too? I could cut & paste everything off the SecWeb that I find reasonable...

Mmm... I think that when I was finished I would wind up with the summary from one of the links at the bottom of each page--"What's new?"

Dr Rick

Arguing that the Bible should be interpreted allegorically because it is allegorical is circular reasoning. It is not "clearly" allegorical as many Christians interpret it literally, and their tradition is an ancient one, too.

<strong> Photocrat does not explain why the Bible should be interpreted his way...

<strong> ...but he is implicitly arguing that we should accept his way just the same.

<strong> There's no trick except the one in Photocrat's mind. The existence of "reasonable" is not an issue; The issue is "Does Christianity contradict evolution?" Photocrat has not provided a rational argument to show it does not, nor has he provided a reason to interpret the Bible as he does.

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God; most ancient texts do not make this claim. If it really was only written in the tradition of other figurative texts of the time, than does it deserve more consideration than any other ancient script which contradicts modern science?

<strong> This is worse than a Strawman: Photocrat is implicitly attributing a quote to me that I did not make. He has no evidence that I made such a supposition because I did not do so.

<strong> This is a false analogy; there are no arbitrary constraints on Photcrat that would inhibit his ability to explain himself.

<strong> This is a strawman.

<strong> This is a non sequitor.

<strong>
...and this is a combination of the two with a little ad hominem thrown in as well.

<strong> Another strawman.

<strong>
Another false analogy: that the Bible is meant as a metaphor has yet to be established and is actually at the heart of this debate; the analogy assumes the conclusion Photcrat wishes to make but does not argue for it.

<strong> ...just as Photocrat's allegoricial interpretations are "presupposed, not established."

<strong> A false dichotomy.

<strong> This is just unintelligible.

<strong> Another false analogy: this has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity conflicts with evolution or how we are to interpret the Bible.

Ironically, Photocrat is actually attempting to do a sort of "cut & paste" on the Bible with his whole argument by claiming that those parts that conflict with science are just parables.

<strong> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

HRG

Actually, at least 60% of all threads could be modelled by a Markov chain. First order would be quite sufficient .....

How about it, Photocrat ? Perhaps in your free time between programming projects ?

Markovically yours,
HRG.

Photocrat

LOL!!! ;]

But yes, I really think that I could pass my prog off for a person sometimes ;]

Actually, though, I have a small Perl script to manipulate Markov chains already finished--I made it quite a while ago just for fun :] I used it to mix up some atheist texts a while ago :] It's not the least bit fancy, but you can have it if you want it. I'm afraid that it wasn't intended to handle really large chains, though--it's file format could be compressed, however. I just don't have the time :] I just wanted to dink around & make silly cut-ups when I made it and that's about all it's good for.

You can have a copy if you want--I don't have it posted online, but I could email it to you :] It's great to amuse yourself when you're bored... *really* bored... :]

Photocrat

It's called prima facie. I gave several reasons why the language is clearly allegorical earlier. Besides; I think that the burden of proof is on you, here. How is it reasonable to infer that an allegory from a myth turned on its head as polemic should be interpreted as a science textbook? Have you been around the anti-evolutionists too long? :]

Now, before you complain, prima facie is obvious to a *reasonable* person. You shoot yourself in the foot every time you point out that those who believe this deny science... Unless you now think them reasonable? Why should I allow you to tell me how unreasonable their position is and then let you turn back to them as arbiters over the theological questions here? If they're not reasonable, why do you appeal to them as support for your case that it's reasonable to understand Genesis as literal history? Lest you have to reiterate your story of the "Honest Creationist" I will point out ahead of time that you cannot simply equivocate "honest" and "reasonable" ...

No, I would argue that explicitly.

The issue is "what is Christianity" actually. You want to define it to be modern fundamentalism. The Pope accepting it shows that mainstream Christian belief does not contradict evolution. That's not relevant except for the fact that there are plenty of experts in the area of theology in that group, who constitute appropriate authority--appeal to that is therefore relevant.

"Omnia ex Deus, omnia ex humanibus" is how we understand Christian revelation. We put it in the cannon because those in the past recognized it as such. We keep it because they recognized it as a source of doctrine; not as a science textbook. To contradict evolution, the author would've had to intend for it to be a literal history. I would say that the text itself argues against such a reading.

There is some nut who will say anything, frankly. If they've already thrown the logical conclusion of evolution out the window, why do you insist that we listen to their beliefs here? Have they not yet shown themselves unreasonable? Why should their interpretations be so credible that you will hear no other?

I was trying to summarize. No, you did not say such a thing--I appologize if my punctuation was misleading--but what form of history do you think exists in the texts? Do tell?

What I am trying to say is that you lack prerequisite knowledge for a fruitful discussion. How would you explain the similarities in cell organelles to someone who didn't know what DNA was? Would you spend a few months on it?

You have said that "Christianity contradicts evolution" in more or less those words.

To be a Christian, one must believe in Christianity.

The Pope believes in evolution.

From your statement, the Pope must not believe in "Christianity."

Ergo, from that I derive what should rightfully be considered a contradiction "the Pope is not a Christian"

Ergo, the original premise--that Christianity contradicts evolution--is not sound.

It is relevant to the definition of "Christian." I have called your usage of the term into question, as you may have noticed above.

That was not an insult. That was derived from your usage of the term "Christian."

I used your own statements to derive it. Having to reason through ambiguity is not the negative thing you made it out to be.

The language, OTOH, is evidence. Take a peek at Genesis--what is a "tree of life" or a "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil"? They make perfect sense as metaphors. But have you *ever* seen a literal one? Ever?

Also, as for strawmen, I didn't ever say that the Bible (e.g. the whole thing) was meant as a "metaphor" ... I said that this passage of Genesis sure looks like one. Why? The language clearly indicates it--prima facie.

Umm, you've got the burden of proof here. We have some minority of Christians who think God is trying to trick us with fossils vs. the rest of us. So as not to make it ad populum, we should note the credibility of the experts on each side--one half rejects science; the other doesn't. The language alone gives us a prima facie case; not to mention the history of the text... The preponderance of the evidence is clearly in my favor. The literal interpretation is scientifically absurd...

Why on earth should you want to presuppose a literal interpreation? You know that Genesis 1 is a poem, right? Are those usually understood literally? C'mon!

Yes, it is. You might not want to use so many. Just for starters, I found --

"Maybe Jesus didn't "literally" die for us; maybe even the whole story of His existence was just a metaphor."

"Afterall, how does one know where the figurative references end?"

I was applying your style of false dichotomy (see previous comment) to the atheist position. As you can see, it produces nonsense, ergo it is not a reasonable line of arguement.

It was addressed to the comment wherein the man cut out the parts of his Bible he thought were at odds with science. As I said, it doesn't prove anything...

No, I am attempting to read them in their historical context. When you remove them from that, it is dishonest scholarship. As I said, it seems that you lack many of the priors... If you like, some time ago, I posted a large quotation from the beginning of the New Oxford Annotated Bible--it has a rather nice section on understanding Biblical texts. Unfortunately, I had to type it in (not cut & paste) so I cannot reproduce it here. Find a copy or my quotation if you care to study this more.

Now then, to summarize what I've been saying in a nutshell:

The language is prima facie metaphorical [e.g. non-literal] --
- Genesis 1 is a poem.
- Many things like the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" make far more sense as symbols than literal fruit.
- There are historical reasons [the theory that it was a polemic] to understand it as an allegory. The allegorical method was widely employed by ancienct scholars.
- etc.

Further, the credibility of the people whose oppinion you appeal to--saying that we should understand it to be literal, since they do; or even since there is room for them to be confused--is suspect. After all, they deny the logical conclusions of science.

Thank you for establishing that fact. At my school, however, they did teach us logic. Everything from Ferio & co. to more modern forms... :]

Pitshade

This would be better in misc. religion.

Dr Rick

This is just dishonest.

Here is the full text of my original statement:

"Christianity contradicts evolution. Many people do genuinely believe both, but this is not the first time that humans have been known to hold contradictory beliefs. Convoluted interpretations of the Bible morph the belief system into something other than Christianity. Most Christians who accept evolution appear to simply ignore the contradictions; that's a lot easier than trying to twist Bible stories into figurative knots.

That the "Pope is not a Christian" cannot be inferred from what was posted by me.

A false dichotomy.

One employing logic would not deliberately counter an argument perceived as illogical with fallacies.

Furthermore, the examples cited are derived from an open-ended system that extended Photocrat's original premise that the Bible is allegorical. They are not dichotomous so even if they were fallacious they could not be labeled as false dichotomies.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Photocrat

Given that the Pope does such a thing (declared that the allegorical interpretation of Genesis is not incompatible with Christianity), it would seem that his belief system is "something other than Christianity."

I don't know how you separate 'Christians' from those who believe in 'Christianity'? Ergo, you are asserting something absurd, or you do not realize the rational conclusions of your statements.

Unless you object to the premise "a Christian is one whose belief system is Christianity" I do not see how your statement can otherwise be interpreted? From that premise & the quoted statement above, it follows directly that 'the Pope is not a Christian'

[BTW: for future reference, I use single quotes for summaries/paraphrases (e.g. things other than direct quotes of the referant) and double quotes or UBB quotes for actual quotations--I don't want to have to worry about any more misleading punctuation]

I use logical analogies. If I can show an obvious fallacy by a logical analogy of someone's writing, it makes it obvious that the original statement is a fallacy.

Which is why I called them straw men, back then. The false dichotomy came in when they were used to support the 'all literal or all lies' type of reasoning, as per the above.

*Yawn* are we finished with logic flames yet? :]

I've given you quite a few openings to discuss the history of Genesis with me (everything from the reference to Hillel, to "omnia ex Deus, omnia ex humanibus" ...) I was rather hoping you'd take one of them, instead of testing just how many fallacies I can name :] Let's see, we're still missing ad misercordiam... maybe if we play a little longer, I'll fill out my SecWeb Fallacy Bingo card for today :]

Dr Rick

...yes, of course you have; here's another nice "opening" you offered me:

Photocrat

Based on the evidence that you took none of them, my hypothesis seems likely.

You've ignored the more interesting tidbits & given me your best rendition of the importance of Genesis, no doubt from the many sermons you've had to endure.

Why?

Why don't you tell me about the Baals? Why would they be important? What did the two trees (life & knowledge of good and evil) symbolize to the Israelites? What important day was symbolized in the creation week?

Ça ne fait rien si vous ne comprenez pas...