The Bible starts with the story of creation. It doesn’t make a lot of sense:
1
1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2
2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
3
Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5
3 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day.
6
Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened:
7
God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8
God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed–the second day.
9
So, to start, the sky separates the two bodies of water that made up all of existence until that point*. Which implies that God found the universe rather than made it. It seems clear that God, in this version of the creation story, did not, actually, create the universe. He found it and He modified it to suit his fancy. This is not the standard way that God is portrayed in Christianity, to put it mildly. In these first chapters, God is not the all powerful creator of the universe but rather something more interesting: an artist.
True, His canvas is quite unusual, but God is clearly manipulating a canvas, using his Own imagination to make what he found more interesting to Himself. The line “God saw how good the light was” reveals and almost playful divinity. The Lord Almighty, the line implies, was not sure how His great work would turn out. He is reassured, it appears, by the fact that this “light” has worked so well on this great canvas He has found. Pleased by this not entirely expected outcome, He moves on with His art.
I like this version of God, God as the uncertain, seeking artist, much more than the traditional image of the All Powerful.
*Should tis imply Biblical support for the Many Worlds Interpretation? After all, the only way this makes sense as a description is if the “dome” is the entirety of the universe, implying that there is another watery canvas just outside of our reach. Is it inconceivable that God, once done with his art here, repeated the process on the other have of the divide universe?
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
Interesting, I’ve never seen the word “when” in Genesis 1:1 before. I think it does still mean God created the heavens and the earth as part of Day 1 but from there on out your artist analogy is great. The way I read it the heavens and formless wasteland were first, that was followed by light, a division of day and night and then God calling it an afternoon.
I do like the idea of God not really knowing where all this was going; it blows some holes in the Christian idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being but does make God somewhat easier to relate to.
I like that version of god better, too. Would love to see the deer-in-the-headlights look emerge on the face of the a bible-thumper after being confronted with that one.
I think we could all get along much better with that version of god. I’m willing to accept someone believing that god found the universe. I’m even willing to believe that quantum mechanics is the work of the devil.
I have a tattoo of the symbol for a wavefunction. It’s the equivalent of a religious symbol to me. See…
In the beginning, there was the wavefunction, and god looked upon it and saw that it was capable of “spooky action at a distance” and he knew that it was the work of Satan, and so god invented the quantum physicist to sort through all that shit, and the quantum physicist invented quantum mechanics. God saw that quantum mechanics was still the devil’s work, and so he let them be, to play at it, because god knew, with comfort, that the quantum physicists would ponder quantum mechanics until they convinced themselves that they don’t actually exist and would hopefully slip away into obscurity, and so god went about his business.
Barbie
That comment had me laughing out loud.
Judd
I am using an online version of the standard Catholic Bible. Maybe a typo? Not sure it changes the meaning all that much, though.
I know you mentioned in your meta post what translation you were using (“the Catholic version”?), but I suggest you link the particular version and verse, like this:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm#v1
(I don’t see any existing hyperlinks to individual verses on that site, but there are targets defined for them, so append “#vN” as I’ve done in my example.)
Kevin, honey, spelling: “beginning”
Maybe a typo? Not sure it changes the meaning all that much, though.
I have to disagree fairly strongly, and in a way important to your point: With ‘when’, it’s unambiguous that “when-ness” pre-exists the creation, matching your description of Yahweh stumbling upon a reality to which form could be added.
Without ‘when’, the sentence only entails “when-ness” post-creation, though it also allows the above understanding. The word is critical to the scope of power of Yahweh.
Of course, the presence or absence of the word is almost certainly a translational artifact and the original may not have entailed either understanding. There are certainly some good reasons to dismiss the vernacular for textual analysis (not that there is necessarily any better understanding of the Hebrew).
It is not “the” story of creation but “a” story of creation. I’m not being pedantic, just pointing out that the Bible contains three such creation stories. This is important because when conservatives say we need to study creation in schools, we need to ask them which Biblical story they are referring to.
Amy-Jill Levine says use of the word “when” is indeed the more accurate translation of the Hebrew, however she also suggests that this particular creation story is a response to the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish {“When On High”). Genesis was written by Jews in exile, vs. the Babylonian myth which was written by a conquering kingdom: one values time (the Hebrew myth) and one values space (the Babylonian myth). If you are a people in exile, then time will of course be your reference point. In exile, you are separate from your lands, your landmarks, your temple, etc. but you can still keep your holy days, the Sabbath and so forth. Time is therefore your way of maintaining your cultural connections when you are in exile.
Don’t mean to get all hyper-technical here, but I wanted people to understand the context of the use of the word “when.” When parsing ancient texts such as the Hebrew scriptures it’s important to take into account the ancient context, not our modern one.
This is why Biblical literalists make me nuts. Well, this and other reasons, but you get my drift …
By the way, here is more on the Enuma Elish from Wiki. When you compare the two myths and understand that Genesis I was written when the Hebrews were in exile in Babylon, it all makes so much more sense. It’s a monotheistic response to a pantheistic culture.
Knowing this colors one of the most important points of this creation myth which you have overlooked: it is the fact that in Genesis I God separates time from light. Because in ancient mythologies it was common for the sun and moon to be worshipped as gods. But the Hebrew religion is a monotheistic one, and the creation myth of Genesis 1 establishes that the sun and moon are NOT Gods. There is only one God: Elohim in Genesis 1, as opposed to Yahweh of Genesis 2.
I can see how a people living in exile in pantheistic Babylon would have relied upon a creation myth such as this one to keep their cultural reference points in tact.
SB:
I think you need to be careful in accepting the premises you’ve cited above as established fact. A quick internet search indicates Moses is the presumed writer of Genesis and that would date the writing to some time during the exodus from Egypt, not captivity in Babylon (which came significantly later).
Next, although I don’t see any particular similarity between the Genesis account of creation and the Enuma Elish you cite, I don’t see that any similarity tells us much. While similarities might suggest that Judaism borrowed from other explanations for creation, the relationship might just as easily be the inverse – that the Babylonians borrowed from the Jewish account of creation. Or, whatever similarities exist could be due to oral traditions being passed down from the time of Adam and Eve, diverging, and being modified. In other words, the similarities might point to an earlier, common source.
In short, we weren’t there and therefore need to be careful of the assumptions we make or the certainty of our conclusions based upon what little evidence we have.
I am curious as to what you think are 3 different creation accounts in the Bible.
Sorry Matt but I think most modern Biblical scholars agree that Moses did not write Genesis I, though he may have compiled the Pentateuch and authored parts of it. Also, scholars today believe that Genesis 2 actually predates Genesis 1. As for why the story of Adam and Eve was placed after the “In the beginning…” story, one can suppose it was for many reasons. They are two completely different stories, showing two completely different Gods: an all-encompassing, dispassionate Elohim versus the more “human” like YHWH. And the third creation myth is from the New Testament in the Gospel of John.
As for the notion that the Babylonian myth was informed by the Hebrew creation myth, not the other way around, that’s just not credible.
SB:
First, with respect to what you refer as the “third creation myth” in the Gospel of John, are you referring to John 1:1-5? (“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it.” NASB)
Second, what is your basis for concluding that the possibility that the Babylonian myth was informed by the Genesis account is not credible? If you are to assume one is the origin for the other, how would you determine that it is one over the other – particularly when one or both are presumed to have been passed along orally before they were ever written down?
Third, I can only guess at your source for the various assertions you make – I presume it’s Wikipedia.
Finally, I don’t see the distinction you draw between the God described in Genesis 1 and the one in Genesis 2. There’s nothing in those two chapters that present different, let alone contradictory, characterizations of God.
The earliest written forms of Genesis, found to date, are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The two strongest theories are 1) that the scrolls originated with and were authored by the Essenes, or 2) originated in Jerusalem and were removed before the destruction of the second temple. In either case, there doesn’t appear to be a strong historical link between connecting Moses to these documents, considering the lore and the historical views on the Exodus.
Barbie,
Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy all list Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch, as do other later books. (http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis) Moreover, there seems little reason to conclude that the Dead See Scrolls were not preceded by earlier writings – obviously, as the numbers of copies grow with time, it becomes more likely to find later copies than earlier ones. Additionally, as writing becomes formalized, is committed to parchment or papyrus rather than clay, and is in known languages, it becomes more likely to discover newer rather than older copies.
In short, the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to offer little with respect to Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch beyond what they themselves record with respect to his authorship.
I see…so, the book itself claims that Moses was the author, ergo, he must be the author, all other evidence aside (such as the dates of the documents not really lining up with the alleged lifetime and location of Moses). Check. And the internet, more specifically, a source on the internet with a pretty large bias towards convincing people that God, through Moses, was the author of these documents told you so, should be stronger evidence of this, compared to several neutral sources aimed at a forming a compendium of historical facts. Riiiiiight.
Also, you know that there have been many revisions of these scriptures throughout time, and because the earliest form – the Scrolls – don’t claim Moses as author, his authorship is most likely an artifact of a later revision.
And sure, there is little reason to conclude that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not preceded by earlier writings…other than the current lack of earlier writings. Your logic on this one is about as rational as saying that there is little reason to conclude that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist – because perhaps we just haven’t seen her/him yet. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong about the Scrolls not being the oldest, but your belief that the pentatuch predates the scrolls is irrational on the basis of there not being any evidence of such.
Barbie,
I’m not at all saying that because the book itself claims Moses as the author he is conclusively the author. But it is certainly evidence supporting his authorship. If you were to pick up a copy of “The Onion Field” at your local library, would you reasonably conclude Wambaugh was its author simply on the basis that the book itself identifies him as the author? There certainly may have been a ghostwriter, but we would generally presume Wambaugh is the author unless given evidence to the contrary.
A known or suspected bias should cause us to more carefully evaluate claims made, but it’s not a basis for rejecting the claim. The claim has to stand on its own merit. Moreover, the citation was intended only to direct you to the specific references in the Pentateuch at later books of the Bible where Moses is referenced as the author of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, also known as the “Law of Moses”).
Also, you know that there have been many revisions of these scriptures throughout time, and because the earliest form – the Scrolls – don’t claim Moses as author, his authorship is most likely an artifact of a later revision.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Would you please clarify? Are you saying that the Pentateuch contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn’t contain the verses identifying Moses as its author (of the Pentateuch, not the scrolls)? If so, do you have a citation for that assertion?
Let me be clear. I’m not suggesting that Moses wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, merely that there is good reason to accept him as the original writer of the Pentateuch, of which the DS Scrolls was a later copy.
Next, I readily concede that there may not have been earlier copies of the Bible than the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I do think it unreasonable to conclude there were no such earlier copies simply on the basis we haven’t found any. The gist of my argument here is that if we have one copy, written in a forgotten language on clay in 3000 BCE, and 1000 copies, in a known language, on parchment or papyrus by 150 BCE, we’re far more likely to find and understand the significance of an example of the latter. In short, what is the probability of having discovered the very first written copy of the Pentateuch? What is the probability that the fragments of Homer’s Odyssey from the third century BC represent the first writing of the Odyssey?
Matt:
Yes, my “third creation myth” is John’s “In the beginning was the word …”
No my source of information is not Wikipedia, it is scholarly work, mainly Amy-Jill Levine at the Vanderbilt Divinity School.
The reason I say the Hebrew myth cannot predate the Babylonian myth is based on scholarly/archeological information. Plus it is not credible to claim a conquering peoples’ mythology would be overtaken by the conquered, the exiled peoples’, i.e. the Hebrew’s.
I am gathering that you are one of these people who believe in Biblical inerrancy? I glean this from your responses? In which case there’s really no point in continuing the discussion as we are too far apart to make a conversation fruitful.
matt,
For the sake of those of us who know “secretlivesofscientists” as “Shoothouse Barbie”, please don’t abbreviate “Southern Beale” as “SB” (unless I’m also confused in thinking that these are not the same people).
I’m reminded of an old comic I saw (and wish I still had) which depicts moses sitting at a table with a quill and papyrus, writing: “And then I died.” (For those who don’t get the joke, the Pentateuch tells of Moses’ death and the events that immediately follow. But if you believe in an invisible friend in the sky, you can probably believe that a guy who’s dead can keep writing about it, I suppose.)
And, way late to the discussion, I personally own four Bibles: A 1979 Catholic “Good News” Bible (from my catechism classes), a 1989 NRSV, a 1984 NIV, and a 1989 KJV. (I really need to add an NASB to the collection, but that’s another matter.)
Anyway, here’s the tally:
Good News: “In the beginning, when God created the universe, ”
NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, ”
NIV: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
KJV: “In the beginning God created the heaven [sic] and the earth.”
The latter two omit the “when” and end the sentence; the former two include the “when” and have a comma separating verses 1 and 2.
Or we could just ask a rabbi and figure out which translation is more accurate.
If I recall correctly, the Hebrew only provides line breaks as its punctuation, it doesn’t make case distinctions, and of course it doesn’t record vowels, so an accurate translation comes out something more like this:
n th bgnng lhm crtd th hvns nd th rth
th rth ws frmls wstlnd nd drkns cvrd th bys whl mght wnd swpt vr th wtrs
thn lhm sd lt thr b lght nd thr ws lght
lhm sw hw gd th lght ws – lhm thn sprtd th lght frm th drkns
lhm cld th lght d nd th drkns h cld nght – ths vnng cm nd mrnng flwd – th frst d
thn lhm sd lt thr b dm n th mdl f th wtrs t sprt n bd f wtr frm th thr – nd s t hpnd
lhm md th dm nd t sprtd th wtr bv th dm frm th wtr bl t
lhm cld th dm th sk – vnng cm nd mrnng flwd – th scnd d
Which explains perfectly why the early christians took up following Paul, saying “Damn straight, we be rolling with the mothafucking Greeks and their phat vowels.”
matt:
“we would generally presume Wambaugh is the author unless given evidence to the contrary.”
Evidence such as, I don’t know, earlier versions that have much in common but do not claim Wambaugh as the author? Or a detailed description of the death of Wambaugh and the events following that death? Or, getting back to the Bible, strong documentary evidence that there were at least four distinct authors, and probably more? Would completely contradictory versions of the Ten Commandments — supposedly given directly to Moses, twice — do the trick?
My point is that there’s PLENTY of evidence that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.
“there is good reason to accept him as the original writer of the Pentateuch”
Sorry, but no. Not if one approaches the matter honestly and without any preconceived notions of who did or did not write them. Though it would be worth asking: what WOULD you accept as evidence that Moses did NOT write them? What would it take to convince you?
(By the way, it’s not just godless heathens like me who reject the “Moses wrote it” hypothesis. I learned about the Documentary Hypothesis from Reverend Sinclair, a Presbyterian minister and a man of deep faith.)
This is strange, but I’m going to defend matt’s comment above:
What he seemed to be saying is that the attributed author is the presumptive author lacking other data.
Which, as far as it goes, is absolutely correct. Then there’s the slight matter of it going as far as the story itself referencing the putative author, so, damning with faint praise and all that.
TG,
I think your descriptions of your education make it perfectly clear that you’re not godless heathen. You’re a godless apostate.
Southern Beale:
You indicate you’re not interested in further discussion. Why is that? Are you not open to the possibility God exists, or that He is as described in the Old and New Testaments? What evidence have you considered, and what presuppositions did you bring to bear on your evaluation of that evidence?
Why do you choose to include John’s description of Jesus as eternal as a separate and different account of creation from that described in Genesis?
Have you tested Levine’s work against that of other scholars, particularly those scholars who ascribe authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses? How did you first become familiar with Levine’s work?
The reason I say the Hebrew myth cannot predate the Babylonian myth is based on scholarly/archeological information.
To what information are you referring? Moreover, I note that you haven’t addressed the other possible explanation offered for any asserted similarities: a common source for oral traditions that diverged and lost integrity to one degree or another.
Plus it is not credible to claim a conquering peoples’ mythology would be overtaken by the conquered, the exiled peoples’, i.e. the Hebrew’s.
Constantine and the Roman Empire?
T:
On Moses’ death described in the Pentateuch: In November of this year, Mark Twain’s autobiography will be published (he apparently directed that it not be published until 100 years after his death). If, as would be reasonable to expect, the autobiography includes information on Twain’s death, would you then discount Twain as the author of the autobiography because he could not have written of his own death?
Evidence such as, I don’t know, earlier versions that have much in common but do not claim [Moses] as the author?
Are you making this assertion? If so, what is your source and to what earlier versions are you referring?
Or, getting back to the Bible, strong documentary evidence that there were at least four distinct authors, and probably more?
Your evidence? On what presuppositions is this conclusion based? That the same author could not have used two different names for God – one conveying His power and might, and the other His more personal connection to man created in His own image? Would you conclude that a sermon which refers to an almighty and powerful God was authored by a different minister than one which emphasized God’s grace and forgiveness, that called Him, “Lord?”
Would completely contradictory versions of the Ten Commandments — supposedly given directly to Moses, twice — do the trick?
Completely contradictory? To what are you referring? The commandments as listed in Exodus 20 and in Deuteronomy 5 are identical. Skeptics apparently point to the fact that in Exodus 20, the reason given for keeping the Sabbath day holy is God’s creation of the earth in 6 days, while Deuteronomy doesn’t mention the creation but reminds the Israelites of their deliverance from Egypt. Is that truly contradictory, let alone “completely contradictory?”
The Bible does indicate Moses received stone tablets with the 10 commandments written by the finger of God on two separate occasions – the first while Moses was on Mt. Horeb and the Israelites were creating and worshiping a golden calf, and the second after Moses came down from the mountain, saw what they were doing, and threw and broke the tablets. Moreover, the first listing of the 10 Commandments is given in the context of Moses relating what has just happened, while the second is recounting how, before entering the Promised Land, Moses reminds the people of when he received the 10 Commandments from God. The first is akin to saying, “I went up to the mountain and God gave me these ten commandments.” The second appears to be, “Remember when I went up to the mountain and God gave me the ten commandments? Don’t do the same thing now that you did then.”
Not if one approaches the matter honestly and without any preconceived notions of who did or did not write them.
I approached this matter without any preconceived notion of who wrote Genesis. I didn’t know so I did an internet search and found that Moses is identified as the author within other books of the Pentateuch. I don’t know what it would take to convince me that Moses did not write Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch. I would have to evaluate the particular evidence. The Apostle Paul argued that the death and resurrection of Christ are essential to Christianity. If Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christianity falls. Acceptance of Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch is not a matter of salvation, but, if proven false, it would certainly call all of the Bible into question, including the resurrection.
Let me ask you, is there anything that would convince you the God of the Bible exists short of Him appearing to you in all His glory? Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, upon meeting God face to face, will you say, “I choose to lie down,” when you can no longer stand?
(As far as quickly and easily looking at different translations of the Bible, I suggest this site: http://www.biblegateway.com/.)
matt: You indicate you’re not interested in further discussion. Why is that?
Beale: I am gathering that you are one of these people who believe in Biblical inerrancy? I glean this from your responses? In which case there’s really no point in continuing the discussion as we are too far apart to make a conversation fruitful.
matt, you already had an answer to that question, and it’s a damned good answer. Anybody who has ever tried to talk to an inerrantist under the assumption that evidence matters to reality knows that doing so is about as effective and enjoyable as shovelling manure lace with broken glass using just your face as a tool.
That said, I’m not sure Beale is correct: Do you hold as a doctrinal or theological position that the bible is without error? I instead get the impression that your (ignorant, parochial) opinions on biblical authorship are just as evidence-based (heh) as your opinions on matters such as global warming and the economy.
Dan M:
Please try to keep it civil. I know it’s hard, but try.
matt:
No offense, but experience has taught me that those who believe that the Bible must be the inerrant word of God are generally not open to being convinced otherwise. If you’re truly interested in the scholarly work on the authorship of the early books of the Bible, do an internet search on the Documentary Hypothesis. The Wikipedia page is actually an excellent place to start. From where I sit, many of the apparent contradictions and redundancies of the Old Testament make a great deal of sense when one understands that the text is actually a compilation of disparate sources that agree on some matters and disagree on others. It makes far less sense when one tries to attribute it all to a single author.
With respect to Mark Twain, if the book includes information about his death and its aftermath, then that part of the book cannot rightly be described as being part of the autobiography, because it cannot have been written by him.
Biblical Scholar…hmmmm, I shoulda been one of them guys.
This whole thread amuses me greatly, but rest assured I don’t mean to be condescending by saying that. I guess its important, and perhaps necessary for worship or enlightenment to examine biblical writings, and probably a reward in itself, for lack of a better term…but, I have to ask, did Kevin embark on this to better understand the bible as the end game? Are we looking for evidence to support or are we looking for inconsistencies to support?
I’m enjoying the conversation, as the people commenting seem earnest and knowledgeable and its been polite, but in the end, I don’t know, it seems a little masturbatory since there won’t be a single mind changed in the entire process.
Mr. Mack:
You appear to be approaching this thread with the predetermined conclusion that there is nothing that could convince you to change your mind. Is that correct?
I’ve begun to look at some of that information and some of the responses to it. But I certainly wasn’t convinced by your asserted “contradictions and redundancies” listed above. They frankly don’t hold water on close examination.
I agree with respect to Mark Twain, and I’m certainly not suggesting Moses wrote of his own death. But just as we would not discount Twain’s authorship of his autobiography because of information included about his death that must have been written by someone else, neither should we use that basis to discount Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch.
Do you have an answer for what would convince you of the existence of the God of the Bible?
What are the presuppositions you apply to the evaluation of the evidence?
Oh, and the point of the Ten Commandments example wasn’t that the event was mentioned more than once, but that the commandments written on the second set of tablets DO NOT MATCH those the ones written on the first. In fact, they’re not even close. In other words, the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 are nothing like those in Exodus 34. (And that apparent contradiction “holds up” as an actual one pretty well, unless one is doing some serious rationalizing.)
Regarding what could convince me that the God of the Bible exists, I’m honestly not sure anything could any more. It’s a subject I’ve pondered literally most of my life, and have studied for years. It’s rather like asking if there’s anything that could convince you that the world is, in fact, flat. It strikes me as a nonsensical provision from the get-go.
And it’s important to note my personal history here. I was raised Christian, and actually used to be quite devout. Ironically, it was my devotion that was my undoing. It caused me to study and learn everything I could, and the more I learned, the less it all made sense. It’s not as if Christianity was something I never even considered. I was in my 20s by the time I started changing my mind.
Also, it would probably be more accurate to say that I don’t reject out-of-hand the idea that the God of the Bible exists, but rather that the Bible is inerrant. That is, if the God being described by the Bible does exist (a prospect which I consider exceedingly unlikely), then it’s crystal-clear that the Bible is not a perfectly accurate description of Him. The source materials don’t agree, and they have obviously been corrupted and mistranslated over the centuries, such that even if such a God does exist, the Bible gives us at best a highly imperfect description of Him.
Matt, if you knew me, I think you’d find that I don’t have any predetermined conclusions in this area. I’m always suspicious of people who do. There is simply nothing I can read, nor anything you can say, that will convince me of God’s existence, or non-existence.
I wasn’t trying to mock the exercise, but I really don’t see it as much beyond that. The stories are where the value lay, I’m not inclined to get bogged down in determining authorship.
“unless one is doing some serious rationalizing.)” I think is sorta my point.
Secretlivesofscientists = Shoothouse Barbie = SB
Southern Beale is someone else.
Sorry it’s confusing; if I’m signed into my account, wordpress authomatically logs me in here as Secretlivesofscientists.
T:
Exodus 34 doesn’t list the 10 Commandments; rather, it merely states, “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” Exodus 34:28(b). I can only assume that what you’re suggesting as a different set of commandments is God’s warning during this second time for Moses on Mt. Horeb concerning entering the Promised Land, His promise to Israel, and His directions for sacrifice. There are no separate ten commandments described in Exodus 34. To read it as you’re apparently reading it, one would have to assume that the “Ten Commandments” referenced here is different than the ones referenced in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and I see no reason to make that assumption.
Barbie,
No confusion on my part, I simply didn’t recall you had been referred to as “SB”. I can see how my addressing Southern Beale as “SB” would have been confusing.
Mr. Mack:
It seems to me you have closed your mind to the possibility of being convinced one way or the other. That seems a pretty strong presupposition.
matt:
I’m sorry, but it takes a strained reading to conclude that — you’d basically have to presume that Exodus 34:10-26 amounts to nothing more a long digression, and that when God commands Moses to write down “these words” in verse 27, He’s not talking about the words He just got done saying.
“Which explains perfectly why the early christians took up following Paul, saying “Damn straight, we be rolling with the mothafucking Greeks and their phat vowels.”
laughing really hard right now! Hebrew has vowels initially, when you are learning the language, but then you learn to identify the words without the vowels. Just like we could sort of make out what you were typing there with no vowels. The first time I had read Hebrew without vowels, it was a little terrifying, but by the third time I read through the paragraph, the words looked normal to me.
Oh, I know that it’s a perfectly usable system, and I also realize that it’s entirely unfair to compare it to disemvowelled modern English, which has spent a long time growing in directions that rely on vowel distinctions.
I did know there were symbols now used to record vowels, and I thought those were a modern invention. However, I had never heard of the use of training vowels.
T:
In Exodus 34, God describes to Moses the covenant (promise) he is making with Israel. He then tells Moses to write down that covenant and the Ten Commandments. Within the covenant, He gives Moses 14 directions, so the reference to the Ten Commandments would reasonably mean the same thing in Chapter 34 as it does in Chapter 20 and in Deuteronomy 5. Exodus 34 certainly does suggest that Moses wrote not only the Ten Commandments on the second pair of tablets but also described the covenant God was making with the Israelites.
If one starts from the presumption that the Bible must be inerrant, then maybe that makes sense. If not, then that description is less than compelling. The “14 directions” objection doesn’t hold water, either, as even in Exodus 20 (the “real” Ten Commandments), God gives at least 12 directions. And the follow-up objection, that the some of those instructions are “obviously” intended to be grouped together as a single commandment is belied by the fact that Jews, Catholics, and Protestants — people of faith, all — can’t agree on what those delineations ought to be.
It makes sense whether you start from that presumption or not. It simply is the most sensible way to read it.
As far as your second assertion above about 12 commandments, what in the world are you talking about? I don’t know how you would reasonably divide those up into 12 commandments. Moreover, if it was so glaringly obvious there were 12 rather than 10, why would whoever authored the books call them 10?
[...] as with most things, the Internet has the perfect one. Right now, Kevin is working on the creation story, which is illustrated here. Categories: An Agnostic Reads the Bible, Humor, Religion [...]
Last thing on the side discussion of Hebrew language, and just because I feel like procrastinating and reminiscing, the Hebrew vowels, in my experience, are exactly that: a teaching ploy. The vowels appear as tiny little dots and dashes below the words, so with increased reading proficiency and speed, you get used to reading across the main words. The grammar structure dictates the differences between words that are spelled the same. There are male and female particles before the words which tell you if it’s a noun, and other indicators, often other words, that tell you if it’s a verb etc. It’s mad confusing. The lack of conjugations makes it more natural for speaking and reading purposes, though. Overall, I’d say German and Japanese have been the easiest to learn.
Do you have an answer for what would convince you of the existence of the God of the Bible?
Did you ever answer what would be needed to convince you of global warming? …A far more answer-able question? GTFOH.
And, props to Southern Beale for not stooping to your childish polysyllabic, pseudo-intellectual trolling by responding to you.
Dan, TG, etc. – how come SoBe learned this lesson so quickly, and you two continue to engage in jerking Matt off?
I mean, I do get some joy out of watching him getting his ass handed to him in new subject matters regularly. But, I’d get more joy if the site disengaged him to the point that he just went away.
And, I’m sure Matt simply thinks that I’m intolerant of opposing views, or even more amusingly that I’ve decided he is some superhero of rhetoric who outclasses me, and I heap dirt upon him from the sidelines because I’m afraid to take him on, head-up. But, I think everybody else here knows me well enough to know that such is far from the case. This thread simply continues to prove that he is nothing more than the apotheosis of hollow, contrarian pedantry. A troll in a finely tailored suit and European luxury sedan.
Actually, Digg, you’ll notice that I’m not engaging matt on this topic. Because unlike his other topics of insanity, really, the bible just doesn’t matter.
By the way, on some deep pathological level, I’d be entertained to see Fr*d unbanned for this topic and given a thread with matt. But, well … nobody would mistake me for a nice person.
It simply is the most sensible way to read it.
Have to agree to disagree there. That doesn’t seem to me like a sensible interpretation at all, and I’m far from alone in thinking that.
As far as your second assertion above about 12 commandments, what in the world are you talking about?
It’s simple, really: count the “you shalls” and “you shall nots.”
T:
It seems you’re grasping for whatever can be made to appear contradictory. You could break the second commandment re: idol worship into two separate commandments – don’t build and don’t worship – or you could consider them a single commandment. The only reason to consider them as two separate commandments and to accord that any significance is if you’re seeking possible inconsistencies. In this particular example, it’s akin to saying the weatherman’s report is in error because he describes a clear day and you see a single, small cloud on the horizon.
Do you really think the Bible is untrue or inaccurate because you can read the Ten Commandments as 11 commandments by separating the second commandment into two separate ones (don’t build idols and don’t worship idols)?
Again, what evidence would it take to convince you the God of the Bible exists? Is there anything that could convince you?
matt:
It seems you’re grasping for whatever can be made to appear contradictory.
And this is why we’re at an impasse. Because it seems to me that you’re grasping at any post hoc rationalization that kinda sorta explains away the contradictions. God tells Moses to go back to the top of Sinai so that He (God) can re-write the ten commandments. Then he gives a bunch of commandments, but these have nothing whatsoever to do with the ten commandments. Then the story says that Moses, not God, writes down the ten commandments. It makes no sense at all, and the Bible can’t even agree on who’s doing the writing. (Insert weak “God does it through moses, so both descriptions are accurate” rationalization here.)
Rabbits chewing their cud, pi = 3, the list of errors and contradictions in the Bible is as numerous as it is varied. But only if one’s willing to actually see them.
Again, what evidence would it take to convince you the God of the Bible exists? Is there anything that could convince you?
I asked you the converse question, and I asked it first.
(And I should note that Exodus 34 is the only place in Exodus where a list of commandments is explicitly identified as “the ten commandments.” That doesn’t happen in Exodus 20.)
T:
There’s no post-hoc rationalization going on here. Rather, there is a concerted effort by many skeptics to create contradictions.
Exodus 34 describes Moses returning to Mt. Sinai to replace the broken tablets containing the Ten Commandments. In 34:1, God tells Moses, “Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.” So, here we have God saying He’s going to write what was on the original pair of tablets which, from Exodus 20 and later chapters we know are the Ten Commandments (and, by my reading, possibly more directions as well). Then Chapter 34 describes a dialogue between God and Moses where a number of directions are given, including restatements of a number of the Ten Commandments. In verses 27 and 28, we learn the following: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” Thus, it tells us again that what is being written on these two tablets are the Ten Commandments. Now, we could choose to ignore what verse 28 specifically says is written on the tablets and decide to relate “these words” back only to the dialogue described earlier in the chapter. But to do so requires making some purposeful assumptions which are unnecessary. Could you read it that way? Sure, but it’s neither necessary nor reasonable within the full context. If God says at the outset that He’s going to write what was on the original tablets (the Ten Commandments), then it indicates that what was written on the new tablets is the Ten Commandments, why would one conclude Moses is getting the instructions wrong – that there is some contradiction. And, if it’s such a patent contradiction, why would the Jewish keepers of the Old Testament preserve and continue to pass down such a patent contradiction?
As to your suggestion of a contradiction between God saying He’s going to write the words on the new tablets and the later reference to Moses doing the actual writing, this too fails to mark a contradiction. If Tom Clancy announces he’s going to write a new book but you learn later that Clancy merely dictated the book to a scribe who physically typed rather than wrote, would you conclude there was some contradiction between Clancy’s original statement and what you later learned? Would you argue that Clancy can’t be believed because he didn’t actually write the book – in fact, it wasn’t even written at all but was word-processed?
As far as rabbits or hares chewing their cuds, I’m not a Hebrew scholar so I won’t venture as to whether the translation is valid, but it’s my understanding that rabbits do something similar to chewing cud. They will apparently eat some of their own pellets in order to further process the nutrients. Leviticus 11:6 thus may represent a biological inaccuracy, or it may merely represent a broader description of similar processes: two separate stages of eating, one where the food is regurgitated into the mouth, and one where it is excreted and then taken back into the mouth. Is this a contradiction in that both rabbits and cows re-chew their food? Or that rock badgers, though not cud chewers, do have multi-chambered stomachs like true ruminants? Does this verse represent a greater degree of biological knowledge?
Next, your pi = 3 suggestion similarly requires a presumption of inaccuracy. If you described a round pool to someone as having a diameter of 10 feet and a circumference of 30 feet, you wouldn’t think anything of it because it would be very nearly completely accurate (a ratio of diameter to circumference of 3). Yet, when you read the description of a large cup-like pool in 1 Kings 7:23-26 and the resulting ratio turns out to be 3 rather than 3.14, you say, “Aha! There’s another contradiction.” Of course, the Bible doesn’t say pi = 3, nor does it imply pi = 3. I suppose, under your approach, we could only conclude the Bible described this pool accurately in this regard if the passage indicated the pool was exactly 10 cubits in diameter and exactly 31.4 cubits in circumference measured from the outer edge of the pool. Or, we could simply approach this passage as conveying the immense size and reasonably accurate dimensions of this cast metal pool in Solomon’s temple.
Finally, as I said several posts up, I’m not closed to the possibility that there might be evidence that would disprove the God of the Bible. I can’t specifically describe such evidence, but my mind is open. God doesn’t command that we close our minds upon accepting Him as Lord. Quite the contrary, He commands us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
The question is, are you open to the possibility He does exist, or do you foreclose that possibility before you even consider the evidence?
there is a concerted effort by many skeptics to create contradictions.
And it’s being perpetrated by the same black-suited government agents who assassinated JFK and who are keeping Jim Morris in captivity to this day, I’m sure.
As for your explanation of what happens in Exodus 34, it may as well have been copied and pasted from inerrancy.org. Seriously, I know many devout Christians (whose devoutness you’d no doubt question based on their lack of commitment to Biblical inerrancy) who’d agree that your interpretation is crap. Again, you have to assume that when God says “write these words,” he’s not talking about the words he just got done saying, but rather some other words which aren’t even explicitly given in that text.
Thus, it tells us again that what is being written on these two tablets are the Ten Commandments.
Again, note that chapter 34 is the only place where the Bible CALLS a just-given list of commandments “the ten commandments.” It doesn’t do so in Exodus 20, and it doesn’t do so in Deuteronomy 5. In fact, Exodus 34 is the first reference to the “ten commandments” in the Bible, and the only other one is in Deuteronomy 10 (where we again see the contradiction about just who did the inscribing on the second set of tablets).
But to do so requires making some purposeful assumptions which are unnecessary.
Assume, just for the sake of argument, that you knew nothing whatsoever of the Bible or the Ten Commandments, and you came across Exodus 34. Would you honestly assume that “these words” referred to some unspoken “other” not mentioned in that text?
Easier still, just delete the words “the ten commandments” from Exodus 34, and see how it reads.
“If God says at the outset that He’s going to write what was on the original tablets (the Ten Commandments), then it indicates that what was written on the new tablets is the Ten Commandments”
This actually makes sense. If one starts from the assumptions that the Bible is inerrant, and that Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 came from the same source. If one doesn’t share those assumptions, however, it no longer makes very much sense. I mean, the basic argument is “the Bible says that what’s written there must match the original ten commandments, therefore the commandments listed right there can’t be the ten commandments.” Not exactly compelling stuff.
“If Tom Clancy announces he’s going to write a new book but you learn later that Clancy merely dictated the book to a scribe who physically typed rather than wrote, would you conclude there was some contradiction between Clancy’s original statement and what you later learned?”
Nice try. In context, the verb “write” clearly isn’t synonymous with “author,” but rather with “transcribe.”
[blah blah blah] requires a presumption of inaccuracy.
No, it doesn’t. There’s plenty of evidence of inaccuracy. It requires one to grade on a curve to say that there is no inaccuracy.
I mean, hell, the Bible can’t even agree what the last words of Jesus were, and he’s supposed to be the most important character in the book!
I’m not closed to the possibility that there might be evidence that would disprove the God of the Bible
And yet, whether you realize it or not, your approach to this entire debate has been that anything that could potentially undermine the authenticity and/or credibility of the Bible must be wrong, mistaken, or a trumped-up conspiracy.
[A]re you open to the possibility He does exist, or do you foreclose that possibility before you even consider the evidence?
The more accurate description is that I foreclosed the possibility because of the evidence. If [G/g]od[s] exist, I’m quite confident that the Bible doesn’t give a particularly good description. It doesn’t even give a consistent one.
After all, if we really had an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, and that God really wanted us to know Him and understand Him, we wouldn’t have a holy text that requires decades of study, and about which nobody can really agree after nearly two millennia of said study.
“The question is, are you open to the possibility He does exist, or do you foreclose that possibility before you even consider the evidence?”
Matt, how would you define open-mindedness to the possibility of a supreme creator? Because as far as I can tell, most of the people here are willing to believe in that possibility given evidence of it. As far as I can tell, the only evidence to consider for the existence of god is holy scripture, and that is an amalgam of archaeologically-based events and fiction. The hardest parts of the bible to prove are the parts involving god, and many other stories have been debunked or given other, more realistic basis, so it’s hardly evidence for god’s existence.
Evidence of god’s existence must be something beyond the bible, and it has to be something that is observable to all, it can’t be something that one person claims to have seen or heard, otherwise god = the lockness monster.
Barbie,
Ultimately, the decision to accept God comes down to faith. It’s not a blind faith, but it is faith nonetheless. It requires that you seek truth with an open mind.
The Gospel of Matthew (7:7-8, 13-14) says, “‘Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.’ ‘For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.’ ‘Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.’ ‘For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.’”
Let’s start with the premise that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God by scientific means. We can’t do some experiment to test His existence.
Next, can we agree that your requirement that evidence of God be observable to all is a criteria we don’t apply in our everyday life or even in science? For example, if the New York Times reports President Obama said such and such on August 2, 2010, you accept the report as likely true without demanding you see it with your own eyes. Similarly, you wouldn’t conclude a previously unknown species didn’t exist upon hearing someone you deem credible report seeing one. And, you likely would rely on a scientific conclusion in a related field for forming a hypothesis in your own field without separately confirming the conclusion. You might not consider any of these “proven,” but you would be reasonably comfortable in accepting them as true.
Along the same lines, would you agree that one’s presuppositions will inform how they view evidence? If you approach the investigation of a death with a presumption the person was murdered, will you potentially view and evaluate the evidence differently than if you approach the death as a natural event? Or with an open mind to either possibility?
How do these premises affect the question here? Above, you say, “As far as I can tell, most of the people here are willing to believe in that possibility given evidence of it.” The corollary is: “Most of the people here are unwilling to believe in even the possibility unless they see evidence of it.” As you describe it then, their presupposition is not that God might possibly exist but that they’ll consider that possibility only if they’re presented with some evidence. Of course, are they seeking only evidence or are they seeking proof? If Christ appeared to them and held out His nail-scarred hands, would they call Him a fraud or call Him, “Lord?” How would they even test whether He was a fraud? Would they accept the account of a trusted friend who claimed to see Christ in such a manner?
Is science evidence of God? In science and in logic, I see evidence of the existence of God. With a different presupposition, another views science as strictly material. With a presupposition that Christianity is a myth, one discounts the historical accounts in the Bible, yet remove the presupposition and the Bible would be seen as historical evidence of what occurred over thousands of years. Seek inconsistencies in the Bible and you’re likely to find them: you’ll conclude that if you can read the Ten Commandments as eleven or twelve, then there is an inconsistency.
Christ tells us in Matthew that if we seek Him, we will find Him. It’s a matter of being open to the possibility and then evaluating the evidence, not of demanding evidence before even considering the possibility.
Ultimately, the decision to accept God comes down to faith. It’s not a blind faith, but it is faith nonetheless. It requires that you seek truth with an open mind.
[Contradicting my own doctrine of disengagement]
No. It requires that you suspend the criteria you use for deciphering “truth” in every single other aspect of your physical and intellectual existence in favor of “faith.” And, that is, one way or another, blind faith, buddy. Faith, in the context of believing in omniscient sky people is what you are expected to cling to when every single rational attempt to justify your belief hits the plunger and stops at a dancing, taunting, whammy.
Next, can we agree that your requirement that evidence of God be observable to all is a criteria we don’t apply in our everyday life or even in science? For example, if the New York Times reports President Obama said such and such on August 2, 2010, you accept the report as likely true without demanding you see it with your own eyes. Similarly, you wouldn’t conclude a previously unknown species didn’t exist upon hearing someone you deem credible report seeing one. And, you likely would rely on a scientific conclusion in a related field for forming a hypothesis in your own field without separately confirming the conclusion. You might not consider any of these “proven,” but you would be reasonably comfortable in accepting them as true.
This is an epic fail. Sure, no beef with this, you know except that this is like apples to Lamborghinis in the context of the question at hand.
Along the same lines, would you agree that one’s presuppositions will inform how they view evidence? If you approach the investigation of a death with a presumption the person was murdered, will you potentially view and evaluate the evidence differently than if you approach the death as a natural event? Or with an open mind to either possibility?
Sure. Don’t know why this is, in the abstract, any more relevant to one side of the debate than the other, though.
How do these premises affect the question here? Above, you say, “As far as I can tell, most of the people here are willing to believe in that possibility given evidence of it.” The corollary is: “Most of the people here are unwilling to believe in even the possibility unless they see evidence of it.
Let’s go back to your awful paragraph of analogy. Would you accept the existence of a previously undiscovered species (that possessed crazy powers beyond which were ever seen by anybody or thing in the history existence) based on physical evidence as strong as that of the existence of Her. (My fake god is a chick. She’s black too, and has an you can rest a beer stein on.)
If Christ appeared to them and held out His nail-scarred hands, would they call Him a fraud or call Him, “Lord?” How would they even test whether He was a fraud? Would they accept the account of a trusted friend who claimed to see Christ in such a manner?
If you a trusted friend of yours went into the bathroom at midnight and screamed bloody mary three times and claimed he saw her staring back at him in the mirror, would you believe his account?
Further, how do you even determine that anything you see or experience is even “real” or true?
Is science evidence of God? In science and in logic, I see evidence of the existence of God. With a different presupposition, another views science as strictly material.
Science and the existence of god need not be mutually exclusive. No problem there.
With a presupposition that Christianity is a myth, one discounts the historical accounts in the Bible, yet remove the presupposition and the Bible would be seen as historical evidence of what occurred over thousands of years. Seek inconsistencies in the Bible and you’re likely to find them: you’ll conclude that if you can read the Ten Commandments as eleven or twelve, then there is an inconsistency.
If you remove the context of peoples who claim that they experienced tornadoes as the wrath of god, those accounts are historically accurate too, as these people were just amateur meteorologists who felt strong and violent winds.
…Basically this line of argumentation reaches its conclusion at “god created all the science that skeptics use to refute here,” which brings us back to blind faith as you grant ownership of all the tools one uses to refute god back to her, despite any independent, empirical evidence of the existence of this god in the first place. Somebody supply the five dollar term for this illegitimate structure of argument.
…Nevermind the fact that there have been hundred of thousands of myths before it, and concurrent to it, that tell almost the exact same story. So, either all of them are essentially true or none of them are, right?
Christ tells us in Matthew that if we seek Him, we will find Him. It’s a matter of being open to the possibility and then evaluating the evidence, not of demanding evidence before even considering the possibility.
Yes, Christ too, preached the doctrine of confirmation bias. And, your first sentence contradicts your second.
[a] Ultimately, the decision to accept God comes down to faith. … [b] It requires that you seek truth with an open mind.
These two things are incompatible. If “an open mind” means a willingness to let reality dictate one’s opinion, then a belief that requires faith is not a belief that can be sustained by reality. You are making clear what is wrong with your mode of approaching other topics.
Next, can we agree that your requirement that evidence of God be observable to all is a criteria we don’t apply in our everyday life or even in science?
No. The criterion used in science is not that every single observation must be shared by everyone (which is of course impossible; we wouldn’t all fit in the lab.), but that anyone who chooses to set up a particular circumstance (in science, often an experimental set up), can observe some consistent characteristic within the results. There are variations around that characteristic, but those are not what gets counted as being observable to all. And your concern about believing reporting is just a red herring because it also ignores the ability for multiple observers to share the observation.
“As far as I can tell, most of the people here are willing to believe in that possibility given evidence of it.” The corollary is: “Most of the people here are unwilling to believe in even the possibility unless they see evidence of it.”
Your corollary does not hold, because the ‘if’ in the former is unidirectional, but stated in that way because of some implicit facts that Barbie thought were too obvious to mention (clearly a mistake when talking to you).
As far as I can tell (and I’m pretty sure this is the same hedge that Barbie was using), most of the people here have had vast amounts of exposure to belief systems that posit a supreme god. Those of us who do not at this point subscribe to such a system have found no evidence for such beliefs, and plenty of evidence against them, and as such don’t currently consider them even marginally possible. (Again, I’d bet that most of us would consider them to have some minuscule non-zero possibility. But colloquial speech rightly considers that “not possible”.) Barbie’s stated condition is relative to this current situation. Adding new evidence for a theistic belief (which for some of us would be the first of its kind) would change the proposition from having a minuscule possibility to having a noticeable one, thus making it newly “possible”.
In short, most of us already spent some time with theism being “possible”. But then we learn things, and it has left that category. You need to provide new data to get it back into that category.
If Christ appeared …
Well if somebody claiming to be Christ appeared, it wouldn’t tell us very much about whether he was really the entity described in your bible, nor whether any of the properties ascribed to that entity were true.
Christ tells us in Matthew that …
No, Matthew tells us in Matthew that Christ tells us something. Why should be believe Matthew, even if there were a god for him to speak for?
She’s black too, and has an [sic] you can rest a beer stein on.
Now I’m curious whether this was “a rack” or “an ass”.
Somebody supply…
“Presuppositionalism”.
Not to be confused with his earlier discussion of presuppositions, since those about what some people believe, while the -ism is about what must be a pre-existing feature of reality.
Dan M:
No, Matthew tells us in Matthew …
Even that’s probably not accurate. cf., Gospels, synoptic.
Now I’m curious whether this was “a rack” or “an ass”.
My money is on “an ass.” I’m personally picturing Mo’Nique from the end of Beerfest.
Yeah, I was glossing the question of what the real referrant of the name “Matthew” was. So, yes, somebody called Matthew tells us in the booked called Matthew…
“And, you likely would rely on a scientific conclusion in a related field for forming a hypothesis in your own field without separately confirming the conclusion.”
um, if by “rely on” you mean “accept as accurate” just because another scientist reached that conclusion, well, I’ma have to say HELL no! Scientific evidence and conclusions from scientific observations are very subjective, and theories are constantly changing to accommodate new evidence and new data. When a scientist makes a claim, it doesn’t become accepted as ultimate truth, having been observed scientifically and supported with scientific data and found to be consistent with other scientific theories. It becomes true in the context of the controlled, scientific observation in the context in which it was made. Another scientist might come along and reach a different conclusion based on a different experiment. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one of these scientists is wrong, but it means that the conclusions are limited to their respective contexts.
Furthermore, all science is based on some kind of measurement. And scientific conclusions are subject to the results being replicable. To say “scientific observation” just means we can make a measurement. Like recording the force of impact of a rock dropped from a 15 meter height and relating this to the gravitational acceleration constant. You can’t “see” the force of gravity acting on the rock, but you can measure it from the force data collected. And anyone can repeat this experiment, and the same conclusion will be reached with all conditions holding constant.
Everyone learns in highschool science classes that saying “I saw it” doesn’t amount to science. Likewise, when I formulate a hypothesis, I don’t just accept whatever has been put out there by scientists, I make a rational decision to base my hypothesis on what I believe to be the most current and extensive knowledge that is relevant to my study. And I don’t just get to decide this on my own, I’m more or less guided by the scientific community, by the process of peer review (flawed as it may be) and the scrutiny on my superiors and peers (boss and coworkers and research fellows) in conducting an honest and thorough search of everything that has been done. If I fail to that, my work will likely come under great criticism, and I might lose all credibility as a scientist.
Since it seems you have some misconceptions about science, I’ll set you straight: science is not a self-evident “thing”. Science is not nature or reality, but a model of reality, based on our observations of the natural world. Science is a practice of defining reality by consistent and honest, unbiased, observations of nature.
Now, unless you do all that we scientists do in formulating the scientific model of reality, and subject your search for divine presence to the same standards that scientists have in observing nature and formulating the natural model of our reality, you’re just another dude quoting scripture and talking about faith.
Barbie,
I wasn’t suggesting you accept a scientific conclusion without reason. Rather, my point was that you will not necessarily independently confirm each separately posited scientific conclusion yourself for purposes of forming a hypothesis. You will rely to one degree or another on work done by others before you (e.g. Newton’s work on the concept of gravity). In other words, you accept for your experiment or hypothesis that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.86 m/sec2 (that’s the number as best I can recall) without separately confirming the acceleration.
Science is a great tool, but it has limitations. By definition, it cannot answer questions outside the material world. It cannot test or evaluate non-material things. Even putting aside its utility in evaluating the existence of God, science cannot answer questions such as what caused World War II, yet, no matter how difficult it may be to answer such a question there is, nonetheless, a true answer. And that is the case regardless of whether we all agree with a posited answer to the question.
In short, every day we make judgments about the truth or falsity of various claims and things without relying on the scientific method because that method wouldn’t be useful in evaluating the claim.
Not to be pedantic, but that still assumes single authorship of that gospel, and that’s probably not accurate, either. Maybe more accurate to say that the the statement is attributed to Matthew, though not necessarily his (assuming Matthew actually existed). Although one could read what you originally wrote as “[The book of] Matthew…” in which case, never mind.
Thanks, Dan.
And, yes, I was leaning toward “ass.” But, the beauty of our lord and savior is that she can be all things to anybody. So, if you’re a tits man, then tits they are!
… there is, nonetheless, a true answer.
Shenanigans! Assuming facts not in evidence. First, it’s pretty obvious that whatever else may be true there’s not A true reason for WWII, but at least several. Secondly, something appear not to have answers. Does N=NP? (Look up “NP-complete” if you don’t know what that means.) Is the Riemann Hypothesis correct? Others questions are provably without answers. What is an algorithm to determine in any given Turing Machine enters a halt state? (Look up “halting” problem.) And that’s even before we get into domains where “reason” is squishier, like history.
Digg, personally I prefer a bit less blunginess than either of those choices, but I think it’s best we all keep the particulars of our tastes, um, close to the chest.
TG,
Oh, good point. I had been foolishly assuming a single author. But I also meant my adjustment to convey “‘Matthew’ is a label for whatever entities wrote those stories, regardless of what those entities were.”. Really, that might better be called Matthewness, but the point is that a label denotes a referent, regardless of how diffuse or otherwise ill-defined that referent is.