Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 05-29-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Both critical and sympathetic scholarship have shown that at least one major purpose for the writing of Genesis is to show that the Jews should not identify God with the gods of the surrounding cultures (i.e., Yahweh is not polytheistic and intemperate, among other things, like the Canaanite gods).

I'd say that the primary purpose of Genesis is the same as any other creation myth: to provide an answer to the fundamental question of "where do we come from?".

It's also necessary to consider the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Don't read too much into a polytheistic creation myth that has been heavily edited later.

Quote:

Also, the author doesn't seem to be trying to "pull a fast one" or write a mythology. He is writing what he takes to be genuine history. The external evidence consists of archeological, extra-biblical and other evidence that would buttress the idea that Genesis belongs to the historical genre, not mythology.

No more so than the Greek myths.

Quote:

Of course, no one (I don't think) will be able to furnish a burned bush that hasn't been consumed. But a world-wide flood? Other writings from other non-Israelitish cultures attest to that event as a historical fact. And this doesn't seem like it's the result of shameless borrowing either: it seems that they are all attesting to the same event.

It sure looks borrowed to me. Especially as there was no actual worldwide Great Flood in Biblical times, so the story cannot be anything other than myth (possibly based on a local flood).

Quote:

One thought -- much of Homer's writings were taken by his contemporaries (no less by Homer himself) to be works of fiction or were at least later categorized as fictional by the Greeks. In the case of the writings of J. Smith and Mohammed, I would argue (if I had more space) that the Book of Mormon has no historical basis (e.g., for starters, where are the golden plates?) and the Quran is loaded with historical inaccuracies.

As is the Bible.

I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are. There is no central dogma in atheism. Other than a bias against the supernatural, there is no bias which dictates what sort of world the evidence will reveal. For instance, there was no particular reason to believe that the Earth must be round, that it must orbit the Sun rather than vice versa, or that it must be more than 4 billion years old. All of these facts contradict the Bible, but they are not requirements of atheism: they are not believed for religious reasons, but because an open-minded study of the evidence leads to these conclusions.

geoff · 05-29-2002, 11:43 AM

Jack the Bodiless wrote:

"I'd say that the primary purpose of Genesis is the same as any other creation myth."

My reply:

What evidence do you have to support your assumption that Genesis is a creation myth?

Jack the Bodiless wrote:

"I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are."

My reply:

You have a priori denied the possibility of the supernatural. That is a prejudicial starting point. If you, like the metaphysical naturalists on this site, want to maintain that humans, through their investigative powers, can discover manifold natural explanations of various phenomenon, fine. I have absolutely no quibble with that and, in fact, wholeheartedly embrace methodological naturalism in scientific pursuits. But, if you deny a priori the possibility of supernaturalism, then you are operating with a fundamental anti-theistic bias. What naturalism + evolution (N&E) amounts to is a reduction of all things to the physical. But abstract objects, numbers, sets, collections, morality, intentionality, epistemic proper function and reliability, and even love and a whole host of other things stubbornly refuse to be reduced to purely naturalistic (i.e., closed-universe) causes. That we should endeavor to know how things operate on naturalistic grounds I have no problem with (after all, this is how good science should be done). But to exclude supernaturalism in the face of evidence to the contrary is fallacious and prejudicial.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: geoff ]

Jack the Bodiless · 05-29-2002, 01:22 PM

Quote:

What evidence do you have to support your assumption that Genesis is a creation myth?

Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1? Followed by the events of the first 6 days?

Quote:

"I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are."

My reply:

You have a priori denied the possibility of the supernatural. That is a prejudicial starting point.

I haven't denied the possibility, but I admit to a bias against it. However, the reason is precisely because of its uselessness as an interpretation. "God did it" says nothing of use. "The supernatural" can do anything, for any reason or no reason, therefore it leads nowhere. It's as if I went to a computer class, asked the tutor how computers work, and was told "It's magic".

Quote:

But abstract objects, numbers, sets, collections, morality, intentionality, epistemic proper function and reliability, and even love and a whole host of other things stubbornly refuse to be reduced to purely naturalistic (i.e., closed-universe) causes.

I suspect that you haven't tried very hard to reduce them. Why should anyone assume they're irreconcilable with naturalism? I don't see any insuperable difficulty with those. And, at one time, this list would have been much longer. You no longer include lightning, for instance. "God of the gaps"?

geoff · 05-30-2002, 05:14 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What evidence do you have to support your assumption that Genesis is a creation myth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1? Followed by the events of the first 6 days?

Please provide an argument.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are."
My reply:

You have a priori denied the possibility of the supernatural. That is a prejudicial starting point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't denied the possibility, but I admit to a bias against it. However, the reason is precisely because of its uselessness as an interpretation. "God did it" says nothing of use. "The supernatural" can do anything, for any reason or no reason, therefore it leads nowhere. It's as if I went to a computer class, asked the tutor how computers work, and was told "It's magic".

This is a false analogy. Please supply an argument as to how God is like magic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But abstract objects, numbers, sets, collections, morality, intentionality, epistemic proper function and reliability, and even love and a whole host of other things stubbornly refuse to be reduced to purely naturalistic (i.e., closed-universe) causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect that you haven't tried very hard to reduce them. Why should anyone assume they're irreconcilable with naturalism? I don't see any insuperable difficulty with those. And, at one time, this list would have been much longer. You no longer include lightning, for instance. "God of the gaps"?

Again, I wholeheartedly embrace methodological naturalism in science. I think humans can and should find out the natural relations of various phenomena; e.g., why and how lightening behaves as it does. But I think that reducing these things (and, really, everything, according to naturalism) to exclusively physical, closed-universe causes leads to problems of cosmic proportions. For starters, consider love. In a naturalistic world, love is reduced exclusively to our reproductive instincts honed for survival. This seems completely contrary to the way I feel when I'm genuinely in love with someone(and I'm sure this feeling is true for anyone else who has every loved). (This is a non-rational argument that has intuitive appeal; but rational arguments could be supplied to.)

Pomp · 05-30-2002, 09:21 AM

geoff:,

For starters, consider love. In a naturalistic world, love is reduced exclusively to our reproductive instincts honed for survival. This seems completely contrary to the way I feel when I'm genuinely in love with someone(and I'm sure this feeling is true for anyone else who has every loved).

I don't personally find this argument compelling, even on an intuitive level. I don't have any problem with the notion that the way I feel about people I love is the result of reproductive and kin selecting instincts. Why must love be "reduced" if it is purely refined instinct? Is the feeling any less real, or less pleasurable, if it has no transcendant component?

Wyrdsmyth · 05-30-2002, 11:05 AM

Quote:

I asked:
"What is your criteria for determining that they are 'reliable'?

and you replied:
I will answer this question with two distinct lines of thought which, I think, need to go together in order to achieve credibility. The first line deals directly with the question of whether the author (or authors) of Genesis are reliable or dependable. I will take it that Moses is responsible (or chiefly responsible) for writing Genesis. (I don't have the space or time to defend this assertion. I'll only say that critical and sympathetic scholarship have regularly affirmed Mosaic authorship up until modern biblical criticism challenged this traditional understanding over the last 150 or so years. But maintaining Mosaic authorship isn't entirely critical to my argument. We could more modestly assume that an Israelite with pro-monotheistic sympathies authored it.)

This entire paragraph seems like a waste of time... You ramble on about whether Moses wrote Genesis or not, and then go on to say that it isn't critical to your argument whether he wrote it or not. If I were your teacher, I'd draw a big red X over this paragraph.

Quote:

The first dilemma we run into in determining the historical reliability of a text is determining what criteria ought to be used.."

Yes... That's what I asked. Rephrasing the question gets you another red X.

Quote:

Space is way too limited to provide an exhaustive analysis and explanation here,

Suggestion: Maybe you'd have more space if you left out needless preamble and issues you admit are not critical to your argument... RED X AGAIN.

Quote:

but first, such a determination is not a hard science, but something akin to a legal proceeding in a courtroom. Thus, I think that any criteria worth their weight would include both internal textual evidence and external evidence.

On this we agree. Why couldn't you have simply said this ten sentences ago? See my points above, especially in regards to the Cousin Earl Proviso to Epistemology. I do not feel you adequately responded to my Cousin Earl.

Quote:

The internal evidence consists of, at least, the author's intent in recording the events he witnessed.

We read documents written by these men about whom we know little or nothing about... we're not even sure who they are... How much can we say about what 'Moses' or 'Homer' intended? How much of this is just guesswork? Of course, the authors of the Bible claim their intent is to record events they have witnessed, or others have witnessed and testified to. But how do we really know what their intent was?

Quote:

Both critical and sympathetic scholarship have shown that at least one major purpose for the writing of Genesis is to show that the Jews should not identify God with the gods of the surrounding cultures (i.e., Yahweh is not polytheistic and intemperate, among other things, like the Canaanite gods).

This does seem to be the new feature introduced by the Hebrews... a belief-system that does not allow other gods. Of course, that has no bearing on whether it's fictional or not. Previously, other belief-systems seem to have been more tolerant of other deities. And so in ancient times we see some give and take between them. New gods were added to the pantheons as other gods faded away... Dionysus is a pretty good example of a god who became more prevalent over time, a deity who was 'introduced' later than the original gods. He was not in the original line-up. The titans may represent gods of a previous generation, who had mostly faded away by the time the Greek Theogony was written. Overall, polytheism had a flexibility that Hebrew monotheism did not. The Hebrews did not accept other gods, or, in cultural terms, the Hebrews resisted being absorbed into other cultures. Undoubtedly, this belief had a huge effect on history. But, what does any of this have to do with whether the belief is true or not? I find it a fascinating topic, to see how the Hebrew religion was different from what others believed (in the psychological sense), and how that difference was new and had a profound effect on the world. The belief in monotheism which did not tolerate rival god-beliiefs certainly changed the world... but we are still left wondering how any of this has bearing on whether monotheism is true or not in the first place. People can believe something quite strongly, and these people can have a powerful effect on the world -- Jews, Christians and Muslims have all shown this -- yet, that thing they believe can be false all along. It is the strength of the belief that makes it so potent, rather than what they believe in. But we need to separate the two, here, Geoff.

Quote:

Genesis, then, is primarily a book of encouragement to the Israelites, an effort to remind them that their God is not limited by the fallabilities of, primarily, the Canaanite gods. Also, the author doesn't seem to be trying to "pull a fast one" or write a mythology. He is writing what he takes to be genuine history.

An author trying to "pull a fast one" is exactly what we cannot rule out, because, after all, it is the most likely naturalistic explanation. If you were "pulling a fast one," would you want it to seem like you were? If you were writing a mythology that you wanted people to believe was true, wouldn't you try to present yourself with as straight a face as possible? "Yes, look at me. I am being quite serious. Look at how solemn my face is. I really mean what I say. These dot-com stocks are just going to keep going up in value, and I know it for a fact."

Quote:

The external evidence consists of archeological, extra-biblical and other evidence that would buttress the idea that Genesis belongs to the historical genre, not mythology.

Does digging up Troy buttress the idea that the ILIAD belongs to the historical genre, not mythology? See, you have to be careful not to make the following fallacy.

1. Holy Book refers to both supernatural beings and historical events.

2. Archaeology verifies a historical event as described in the Holy Book did indeed occur.

3 - Conclusion: The supernatural beings descibed in the Holy Book are real.

Geoff, are you familiar with this fallacy? I hope I'm not sounding condescending, although I realize I probably do.

Quote:

Of course, no one (I don't think) will be able to furnish a burned bush that hasn't been consumed. But a world-wide flood? Other writings from other non-Israelitish cultures attest to that event as a historical fact. And this doesn't seem like it's the result of shameless borrowing either: it seems that they are all attesting to the same event.

References to the flood hardly constitute external evidence that the Bible is true. In fact, I would say this is one of the Bible's weakest points, next to the fact that the earth is demonstrably older than 4004 BC.

Quote:

The other line of thought is perhaps the most important. I'll pose it in the form of a question: Why do theists and non-theists evaluate and judge the available data in widely divergent ways? <snip> For starters, see Michael Polanyi (cf. "Personal Knowledge") and Thomas Kuhn (cf. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").

Well, to use some Kuhnian terminology, when a given paradigm is shot through with enough anomolies, it gets abandoned. And in my opinion, that is indeed what has happened with much of old school theism -- it's been abandoned, or is in the process of being abandoned. You can either stay on the sinking ship, and keep trying to patch the leaks (i.e., keep trying to rationalize away how the Bible is inconsistent with what we've learned about the world), or you can jump to the entirely different ships of metaphysical naturalism or liberal theism.

Now, what I see you doing (in the Kuhnian sense) is shouting at us naturalists, from your sinking ship. The motto on your ship is THE BIBLE IS TRUE. And you're shouting at us over the flames and the roar of the waves, and you're saying:

"The Ship of Fundamentalism is doing just fine! It's the Ship of Metaphysical Naturalism that is full of anomalies, but you just don't want to see it! It's YOUR ship that is full of holes!!!"

And I'm saying:

"Jump! Here's my hand. There's no need for you to stay over there. Come on over here! Your ship is going down. Our ship may not be perfect -- that is true -- but it has proven seaworthy so far!" The motto on our ship is WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT IS OUT THERE BUT WE'RE WILLING TO GO LOOK.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

Wyrdsmyth · 06-05-2002, 06:34 PM

>BUMP<

Geoff,

You still there?

Vorkosigan · 06-06-2002, 01:00 AM

Geoff probably has homework to do. It is getting to that time of year. I just finished grading 200 papers today, and that was just for two classes....when I look at the heap on the floor right now, I feel like posting thirty or so times in the rants and raves forum.

I'd sure like to see the other 15 arguments he has defeating metaphysical naturalism. The stuff he posted to the Philosophy board earlier was not convincing, to put it kindly. I am sure Pompous Bastard would love to see them too. Hope you come back with those arguments, Geoff.

Vorkosigan

Pomp · 06-06-2002, 11:46 AM

Here's a third hoping geoff comes back. Even if his arguments haven't, IMO, been compelling, it's been interesting chewing on them.

05-29-2002, 11:43 AM	#32
geoff Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 39	Jack the Bodiless wrote: "I'd say that the primary purpose of Genesis is the same as any other creation myth." My reply: What evidence do you have to support your assumption that Genesis is a creation myth? Jack the Bodiless wrote: "I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are." My reply: You have a priori denied the possibility of the supernatural. That is a prejudicial starting point. If you, like the metaphysical naturalists on this site, want to maintain that humans, through their investigative powers, can discover manifold natural explanations of various phenomenon, fine. I have absolutely no quibble with that and, in fact, wholeheartedly embrace methodological naturalism in scientific pursuits. But, if you deny a priori the possibility of supernaturalism, then you are operating with a fundamental anti-theistic bias. What naturalism + evolution (N&E) amounts to is a reduction of all things to the physical. But abstract objects, numbers, sets, collections, morality, intentionality, epistemic proper function and reliability, and even love and a whole host of other things stubbornly refuse to be reduced to purely naturalistic (i.e., closed-universe) causes. That we should endeavor to know how things operate on naturalistic grounds I have no problem with (after all, this is how good science should be done). But to exclude supernaturalism in the face of evidence to the contrary is fallacious and prejudicial. [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: geoff ]</p>

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

05-30-2002, 05:14 AM	#34
geoff Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 39	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What evidence do you have to support your assumption that Genesis is a creation myth? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1? Followed by the events of the first 6 days? Please provide an argument. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I agree that theistic interpretations are governed by religious bias, but I dispute that atheistic ones are." My reply: You have a priori denied the possibility of the supernatural. That is a prejudicial starting point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I haven't denied the possibility, but I admit to a bias against it. However, the reason is precisely because of its uselessness as an interpretation. "God did it" says nothing of use. "The supernatural" can do anything, for any reason or no reason, therefore it leads nowhere. It's as if I went to a computer class, asked the tutor how computers work, and was told "It's magic". This is a false analogy. Please supply an argument as to how God is like magic. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But abstract objects, numbers, sets, collections, morality, intentionality, epistemic proper function and reliability, and even love and a whole host of other things stubbornly refuse to be reduced to purely naturalistic (i.e., closed-universe) causes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suspect that you haven't tried very hard to reduce them. Why should anyone assume they're irreconcilable with naturalism? I don't see any insuperable difficulty with those. And, at one time, this list would have been much longer. You no longer include lightning, for instance. "God of the gaps"? Again, I wholeheartedly embrace methodological naturalism in science. I think humans can and should find out the natural relations of various phenomena; e.g., why and how lightening behaves as it does. But I think that reducing these things (and, really, everything, according to naturalism) to exclusively physical, closed-universe causes leads to problems of cosmic proportions. For starters, consider love. In a naturalistic world, love is reduced exclusively to our reproductive instincts honed for survival. This seems completely contrary to the way I feel when I'm genuinely in love with someone(and I'm sure this feeling is true for anyone else who has every loved). (This is a non-rational argument that has intuitive appeal; but rational arguments could be supplied to.)

05-30-2002, 09:21 AM	#35
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	geoff:, For starters, consider love. In a naturalistic world, love is reduced exclusively to our reproductive instincts honed for survival. This seems completely contrary to the way I feel when I'm genuinely in love with someone(and I'm sure this feeling is true for anyone else who has every loved). I don't personally find this argument compelling, even on an intuitive level. I don't have any problem with the notion that the way I feel about people I love is the result of reproductive and kin selecting instincts. Why must love be "reduced" if it is purely refined instinct? Is the feeling any less real, or less pleasurable, if it has no transcendant component?

06-05-2002, 06:34 PM	#37
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	>BUMP< Geoff, You still there?

06-06-2002, 01:00 AM	#38
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Geoff probably has homework to do. It is getting to that time of year. I just finished grading 200 papers today, and that was just for two classes....when I look at the heap on the floor right now, I feel like posting thirty or so times in the rants and raves forum. I'd sure like to see the other 15 arguments he has defeating metaphysical naturalism. The stuff he posted to the Philosophy board earlier was not convincing, to put it kindly. I am sure Pompous Bastard would love to see them too. Hope you come back with those arguments, Geoff. Vorkosigan

06-06-2002, 11:46 AM	#39
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Here's a third hoping geoff comes back. Even if his arguments haven't, IMO, been compelling, it's been interesting chewing on them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.