Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Charles Darwin:
We know from science, and all of our empirical observations what a rare commodity complexity is.

That's demonstrably false, as I've pointed out earlier.

But of course, as you well know, I wasn't talking about miniscule amounts of complexity. If I say there are only a few mountains in the world don't show me the anthill in your backyard to prove me wrong.

create a bacterium,

From its component elements? Actually, that's a very straightforward task, though an incredibly tedious one -- a similar task has recently been accomplished for a polio virus.

:banghead: Again, as I'm sure you must have understood, I meant in origin of life experiments, not genetic engineering experiments.

or show how echolocation could have arisen.

Easy. All you need is:

Hearing
The ability to make sounds
A brain that can make lots of inferences

So if hearing a loud echo of your chirp happens just before you hit a cave wall, then you learn to associate loud echoes with nearby walls. I've experienced similar learning with a pet cat my family once had. I had to keep her away from her food bowl when I filled it, because she would come rushing toward it when I opened a can of cat food.

This is not science, this is dreaming. Do you know much about echolocation? Certain bats map out objects around it as small as a mosquito by sensing the echoes of its own squeaks -- a system known as echolocation. To begin with, the bat emits a high-pitch squeak up to 2,000 times per second. Next it determines both range and direction to the tiny mosquito by sensing the echo while filtering out echoes from the squeaks of nearby bats.

Anyone familiar with today�s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat�s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. To think that things like this just happen to occur via a series of mutations is not scientific thinking.

But in spite of all this built up knowledge, we are to assume that the phenomenal complexity that we *do indeed* observe is a product of natural laws because, after all, the God hypothesis is a myth.

So what do you prefer: "Goddidit!"?

Oh, of course not. Better to believe that things arise on their own.

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
...The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct. ...

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Except that this "inner feeling" tells different things to different people. For example, it tells strict Muslim fundamentalists that it is wrong for women to reveal any parts of their bodies in public.

Interesting point. But I would argue that your example does not come from what I am talking about. I am talking about that gut feel you get on the spur of the moment when you see, or hear about, some great injustice.

The Muslim rules for women, it seems to me, is indeed a social construct rather than a personal judgement. Nonetheless, I would agree with you if you say that those social constructs can be very deeply held.

WinAce · 08-10-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I checked out your webpage satire of "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies." The problem, in my view, is that "Over 300 Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies" is not an appropriate apologetic; rather, many of those prophecies are best suited for edification of believers. So I would argue you are making a strawman out of that page (note: I'm unaware of what the authors intended, I'm merely pointing out the obvious)

You might not consider such a "prophecy gallop" an "appropriate apologetic", but you'd be surprised how many believers do. That's actually an argument they often use--"look at all these verses that somehow remind you of something Jesus went thru, that couldn't have just happened by chance". :banghead:

Quote:

For you to seriously address the prophecies, you ought to take some of the best ones (ones that are actually appropriate for apologetics) and explain why they are bogus.

If you'll look at my webpage, I did a point-by-point analysis of Isaiah 53, one of Christianity's so-called "flagship" prophecies.

Quote:

Isaiah 53: the one prophecy that leaves little doubt of the Messiah's identity. Very long and detailed, and yet the parallels between it and Napoleon's life are strikingly uncanny: '2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him'. As noted above, Napoleon's family wasn't particularly rich or famous. That the Emperor of France would be culled from such an unlikely background is a fairly unusual prediction to make, considering the much greater nobility of most French rulers. '3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not'. The people of Spain, instead of welcoming Napoleon, bitterly fought against French troops instead, while Pope Pius VII excommunicated him. [12]. Thomas Jefferson, despite the very profitable Louisiana Purchase earlier, referred to him as "the Attila of this age" and a "ruthless destroyer of ten millions of the human race" [13]. The French Senate voted to depose Napoleon, resulting in his shocked disbelief [14]. '4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed'. At the end of Napoleon's rule, the Allied powers made it clear they were after him personally, not the French people. Napoleon himself agreed to sacrifice his life for the nation of France if need be. [15]. '7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth'. This stunning prediction of the silent film Napoleon [16] was made many centuries before cinematography was even invented! '12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors'.Napoleon Bonaparte remains one of the greatest, most intriguing military generals and rulers in all of recorded history.

I have very little doubt I couldn't do the same with Psalm 22 and others. The only reason I did not reinterpret them thus originally is because I thought my article was sufficient to demonstrate a point, but I may no revisit it in the future.

By the way, where does Psalm 22 specify it's a prediction of the future? As far as I can tell, all indications are that it's an ancient Hebrew song.

Even if it a medieval poem would be found to mirror events in President Bush's life, how exactly would that demonstrate it was written with that purpose in mind? If it didn't mention anything about the future, as Psalm 22 doesn't, how could one justify interpreting it that way?

Quote:

7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

This, superficially, appears a parallel to these verses:

Matthew 27:41-43
In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

However, this is found exclusively in Matthew, famous for stretching OT verses to create fulfilled prophecies. Mark was an earlier witness and omits the quote from Psalm 22. Luke was about contemporary, and does the same. John wrote much later, but still didn't mention it.

Mark 15:31-32
In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

Luke 23:35
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."

That doesn't make the recorded "fulfillment" very impressive.

Quote:

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.

Your standard ancient Hebrew psalm. I don't see how this could be applicable to one man in lieu of thousands of others. It's also something David or another downtrodden author could be expected to pen without any supernatural element involved.

Quote:

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.

Ditto. Lots of vivid imagery.

Quote:

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

Same here.

Quote:

16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;

There are considerable problems with this rendering of the verse. See this website. It may be referring to animal bites, for one, which is supported by the imagery of dogs and lions elsewhere in the Psalm and which would make far more sense for David to write about. "Some commentators speculate that this verse is a reference to demonic creatures of pagan mythology who brought disease to men, such as the Seven Udugs of Sumerian literature (probably the same myth that is reflected in Psalm 91:5-6). This explanation is bolstered by the fact that verses 14 and 15 obviously refer to a fever."

Most Hebrew manuscripts translate it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced". Additionally, none of the evangelists quoted this verse as fulfilled by Jesus, despite showing detailed knowledge of Psalm 22 and quoting other verses, such as those in Zechariah, that alluded to a side being pierced. This may indicate the version of Ps.22 they were familiar with did not contain the modern rendering.

As a further note, crucifixion does not involve piercing the "hands and feet", but rather the wrists and ankles, so it's a moot point anyway. At most, this rivals Nostradamus' supposed "prophecy" about King Henry II of France:

"The young lion shall overcome the old
On the field of battle in single combat,
In a cage of gold he shall pierce his eyes
Two knells, (then) one, then a cruel death."

That, despite its superficial similarity to the real event, didn't actually predict anything correctly.

Quote:

17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.

Whatever.

Quote:

18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

This was a common practice when dealing with a man considered as good as dead, whether a criminal or war prisoner. Since Psalm 22 is most likely an account by David of his escape from Saul, it isn't necessarily a prophecy of anything, but rather a mention of contemporary events.

Quote:

Of course, Jesus referenced this Psalm before dying on the cross.

Actually, he used a generic phrase of astonishment that anyone could use: "God, why have you forsaken me?"

And that's if you believe the gospel writers were honest reporters as opposed to idealogically-motivated cultists. Given how humans can misinterpret what they hear right away or misremember it years later, what makes you think these were the exact words Jesus said? For all you know, he might have yelled "Dammit, God, some help please".

Finally, you appear to be omitting the parts of Psalm 22 that don't exactly fit Jesus' life.

2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

Jesus didn't cry out at night, because he was already dead by then--at least, if we're to believe Mark's story of Joseph of Arimathea requesting his body "as evening approached".

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

This, as far as I can tell, is some generic "look at the deep s--- I'm in" proclamation using the poetic context of being surrounded by a herd of angry cattle. Bashan was a district northeast of the Sea of Galilee famous for its well-fed and fat cows.

Nevertheless, no gospel writer mentions bulls at the crucifixion. A number of figurative interpretations has been put forth, saying the phrase meant everything from the Romans to the Sanhedrin, but this only makes the "prophecy" drastically weaker by upping the number of possible interpretations.

As a digression, a good "prophecy" is specific enough that you can tell what it's predicting in advance of the event. The picture one gets from a plain reading of Psalm 22 alone is quite different than the one you get from the gospels alone.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

The reference to obviously visible bones appears to be describing a starving man. This makes perfect sense for David, who was fleeing from King Saul, but much less for Jesus.

Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Jesus wasn't killed by a sword. The alleged centurion who offed him used a spear. However, this makes perfect sense if applied to King David.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

No lions or wild oxen either. However, the continued references to animals supports the "like a lion" translation of verse 16 in lieu of "pierced my hands and feet".

I could name more, but that should be about it for now.

Biff the unclean · 08-10-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical here, but I've yet to meet such Christians. Can you elaborate? Were they advocating making atheism illegal or something? I'll admit there are fringe thinkers (in every movement of course), but you say many Christians are of this intent.

You haven't met them? HA! That's pure BS...or to be more exact, pure BSA

Family Man · 08-10-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
[B]Actually the resurrection had several orders of magnitude more witnesses, and it created an huge movement practically overnight.

First, all of those "witnesses" are anonymous, with the exception of a few apostles like Peter of whom very little is known. Hence, these "witnesses" are worthless in terms of making an evaluation.

Second, there wasn't a "huge movement practically overnight." Christianity was a small, benighted sect albeit an annoying one (hence the persecution) until it had the good fortune to convert the Roman royal family. If that hadn't happened, Christianity would be known only to scholars who study obscure Roman sects.

Quote:

There were literally tens of thousands of copies of the NT circulating at a time when those were big numbers.

Which tells us nothing about the truth of the claims.

Quote:

Opponents claimed things like : Jesus is of Satan, but they didn't generally, even in the non Christian literature where references to Him are scant, claim He did not work miracles.

They wouldn't. Miracle workers were a dime a dozen at the time.

Quote:

As for the motives of early Christians, I'm not sure what the issue is. I think most people agree their motive was a sincere belief that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. They also advocated high moral living, including things like honesty.

I'm not saying that their beliefs weren't sincere. But like many people, they had a clear problem with the honesty thing. You are aware, are you not, that the birth narratives are widely considered to be complete fabrications. And then there was the blackout, the earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and walking during the resurrection around that clearly didn't happen. Like many people, the gospel writers couldn't resist a few exaggerations and outright fibs.

Quote:

What you are positing has got to be the most incredible conspiracy theory of all time Somehow a hodge-podge group of disparate followers pulled of the biggest deception in history with a few cleverly written documents and managed to get themselves killed for it in the process.

I'm not positing a conspiracy theory at all. People come to sincere, if incorrect beliefs all the time. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my position in the future. I guess you can't resist a little fib yourself.

And people stupidly get themselves killed for silly beliefs all the time. I listed some earlier. Why do only Christian deaths count?

Family Man · 08-10-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Things that weren't prophecies ... Hmmm. I wonder how these scholars decided that Ps 22 doesn't qualify as a Messianic prophecy. Sorry, but it sounds like a convenient way of avoiding a rather obvious prophecy.

Look, if you don't want to believe, that's fine. But you're going far beyond that with your statements.

You're going to have to be more specific than that if you want a response. But if you have a question about it, I suggest that you start a thread about it in BC&H. I'm sure that the resident experts (and we have some very knowledgable ones) will be able to explain to you exactly how it isn't a messianic prophecy.

Editted to add: I see WinAce has already done this for us. To summarize, vaguely worded poem that happens to include pierced hands and feet hardly makes a reliable prediction of the future.

And actually, the hand and feet thing is wrong. When nailed (ropes were the usual method), the body was pierced through the ankles and wrists because the hands and feet wouldn't be strong enough to hold the victim's weight. If I'm not mistaken, the popular image of Jesus's wounds being on the hands and feet is a direct result of Christian misinterpretation of Psalm 22 as being a prophecy when it isn't.

lpetrich · 08-10-2003, 08:48 PM

Charles Darwin:
But of course, as you well know, I wasn't talking about miniscule amounts of complexity. If I say there are only a few mountains in the world don't show me the anthill in your backyard to prove me wrong.

Except that self-organization is all around us. Look at a riverbed. Did some trolls dig it? Look at some snowflakes. Were they assembled by little fairies? Look at some mud cracks. Were they created by goblins carving up the drying mud? Look at condensation out of solution. Are there some elves who sculpt the resulting solid material?

create a bacterium,

... Again, as I'm sure you must have understood, I meant in origin of life experiments, not genetic engineering experiments.

I think you mean assembling one from scratch using an original design. That, I will concede, is much more difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.

or show how echolocation could have arisen.

(on the complexities of some echolocation systems...)

Rome wasn't built in a day. And the same is true for every other big city.

Evolution does NOT work by "poofing" stuff into existence in its full final form. Evolution works by modifying existing things.

And one gets a complicated high-performance echolocation system by modifying an existing simpler one, such as one suitable for avoiding bumping into the walls of caves.

Family Man · 08-10-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

The evidence (not proof) that is comes from God is in the conviction of the grieved. The stronger the conviction, the stronger the evidence that the inner sense of morality is not merely a social construct.

Now there's an unsupported assertion if I've ever seen one, considering you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of your god/morality hypothesis (hint: someone's "inner feeling", especially if taught that they are supposed to have some "inner feeling", is evidence of someone's "inner feeling" and nothing else.)

Quote:

And let's face it, we can all attest to this inner feeling. We all know what it is like to cast a righteous judgement upon what we see as evil. There is no post-modern feeling of relativism in our heart -- we suddenly *know* right vs wrong.

Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Finally, let me demonstrate the society-specific nature of moral beliefs. In late 80's I lived and taught English in Korea. One of the things that my students "inner voices" seemed to be unanimous about was that our society was immoral because our parents didn't come to live with the eldest male child upon reaching retirement age. Even worse, we sent them to nursing homes. (Some were under the impression that we go directly from our retirement party to the retirement home.) Not surprisingly, my "inner voice" said there was nothing immoral about this at all.

So, if our inner voices come from God, why is it that the messages are so society-specific?

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Well, now I will be the one to "thank you not to misrepresent my position in the future." I don't know how you got "no morally ambiguous situations" from what I said.

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
Yes, we can. It comes from being socialized from birth into society and perhaps bred into us from evolution. There's no evidence at all it comes from God.

And are you saying that there are no morally ambiguous situations? That in all situations you can instantly tell right from wrong with great certainty? Wow, that must be some talent.

Finally, let me demonstrate the society-specific nature of moral beliefs. In late 80's I lived and taught English in Korea. One of the things that my students "inner voices" seemed to be unanimous about was that our society was immoral because our parents didn't come to live with the eldest male child upon reaching retirement age. Even worse, we sent them to nursing homes. (Some were under the impression that we go directly from our retirement party to the retirement home.) Not surprisingly, my "inner voice" said there was nothing immoral about this at all.

So, if our inner voices come from God, why is it that the messages are so society-specific?

So your explanation entails evolution. Good luck. Regarding the Koreans, I think they may have had a point, but of course they were judging at a distance and making generalizations. I suspect we would all agree, you, me, and the Koreans, that there are cases where nursing homes can work well given the situation andn how it is handled; and that they can be not so good too. You mention that they had impressions which were not necessarily too accurate. So, yes, they had some wrong judgements.

You point out above that there are indeed morally ambiguous situations. I would add that morality is a highly complex thing, with lots of room for creativity and multiple "good" and "bad" solutions to most situations. So I'm not exactly shocked that there are society-specific mores.

None of this nullifiies my point that our intuitive, spur of the moment convictions of right and wrong seem to be real. Sure, you can explain them using evolution. And I could poke holes in that explanation. First, and foremost, that evolution is a stretch, and that is putting it kindly. Second, that with evolution one would hardly expect self-sacrifice to pop out as an end product. And then you could answer with a just-so story about how evolution (if indeed it really did happen) could have produced this.

wade-w · 08-10-2003, 11:06 PM

[mod hat on]

Charles Darwin:

Discussions of evolution are off topic for this forum. If you wish to debate the subject, you should try the E/C forum. Many other posters have pointed this out to you, and you have ignored it; consider this an official notification.

lpetrich:

Let's give CD a chance to take it to the proper forum.
[mod hat off]

The sense of right vs wrong you refer to can be explained by cultural indoctrination alone. There is no need to appeal to anything else.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2003, 08:48 PM	#57
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Charles Darwin: But of course, as you well know, I wasn't talking about miniscule amounts of complexity. If I say there are only a few mountains in the world don't show me the anthill in your backyard to prove me wrong. Except that self-organization is all around us. Look at a riverbed. Did some trolls dig it? Look at some snowflakes. Were they assembled by little fairies? Look at some mud cracks. Were they created by goblins carving up the drying mud? Look at condensation out of solution. Are there some elves who sculpt the resulting solid material? create a bacterium, ... Again, as I'm sure you must have understood, I meant in origin of life experiments, not genetic engineering experiments. I think you mean assembling one from scratch using an original design. That, I will concede, is much more difficult. But I don't think it's impossible. or show how echolocation could have arisen. (on the complexities of some echolocation systems...) Rome wasn't built in a day. And the same is true for every other big city. Evolution does NOT work by "poofing" stuff into existence in its full final form. Evolution works by modifying existing things. And one gets a complicated high-performance echolocation system by modifying an existing simpler one, such as one suitable for avoiding bumping into the walls of caves.

08-10-2003, 11:06 PM	#60
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	[mod hat on] Charles Darwin: Discussions of evolution are off topic for this forum. If you wish to debate the subject, you should try the E/C forum. Many other posters have pointed this out to you, and you have ignored it; consider this an official notification. lpetrich: Let's give CD a chance to take it to the proper forum. [mod hat off] The sense of right vs wrong you refer to can be explained by cultural indoctrination alone. There is no need to appeal to anything else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.