Religion and Science?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheVeganAtheist
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: Canada

Religion and Science?

Post by TheVeganAtheist »

Anyone else listen to the most recent Dogma Debate podcast, episode 138?

http://www.spreaker.com/show/dogma_deba ... id_smalley

If not, it featured a christian who has a particularly odd view of the genesis account in which he twists it to be accurate to how we understand the universe and earth formed. Plus he talks about the flood and Noah.

In regards to the genesis account, the guest postulates that the account is written from god's perspective on the surface of the earth. He claims that the sun and the moon where not created on the 4th day, but rather the clouds parted and became visible on that day. He states that the sun and moon where created on the 1st day (when god created the heavens).

In regards to the noah flood myth, the guest argued that the flood was not global, and that the original storey was copied incorrectly. Anytime a passage that clearly states it was a global flood, the guest argued that the scribes who wrote the copies of the bible thought it was a global flood, but were wrong, so they kept retelling the story wrong.

It was a new take that Ive never heard. Still just as ridiculous as the others, but its amazing the lengths people will go to make their religious beliefs fit with reality.
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Still just as ridiculous as the others, but its amazing the lengths people will go to make their religious beliefs fit with reality.
No, not as ridiculous. It's still wrong, but it's substantially less deserving of ridicule in its wrongness, which is of a much less arrogant and more subtle sort that does NOT presume to directly do battle with proven science (although still maintains a certain margin of ignorance of proven science that is not as widely known) or make claims of a global conspiracy by scientists and world governments led by Satan (which is what those Christians who deny science ultimately are doing).

I've heard this kind of thing before, quite a few times. I'm not quite sure how you got along without hearing it for so many years, since it's pretty common (though maybe not as often laid out like that all at once). There are even whole documentaries on this world view, particularly with regards to the flood, but sometimes addressing creation and Jesus -- many aired on the history channel in the U.S.

This view accounts for maybe 10% of Christians (those just shy of the most liberal and progressive, who see the Bible as a book of moral guidance and parables written by man, and view god in the light of deists with benefits).
User avatar
TheVeganAtheist
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by TheVeganAtheist »

No, not as ridiculous. It's still wrong, but it's substantially less deserving of ridicule in its wrongness,
How have you come to that conclusion? In what way have you determined the level of ridiculousness?
much less arrogant and more subtle sort that does NOT presume to directly do battle with proven science
less arrogant? They presume the bible doesnt mean what it actually says, and so reinterpret it to say what they want it to say so that it better aligns with the science.
I'm not quite sure how you got along without hearing it for so many years, since it's pretty common
Ive heard of people trying to make the bible fit science a lot, but never in the way the guest on the podcast did. Especially the bit regarding the genesis account being from the perspective of god from the surface of the planet, and that on day 4 the clouds parted revealing the already formed sun and moon. Ive watched every debate I can find, and Ive never heard anyone argue that before.
here are even whole documentaries on this world view, particularly with regards to the flood
I've seen many, and they do talk about a local flood, but not anyone Ive seen argues that the scribes copied the bible wrong and put in their wrong interpretation of it being a global flood.
This view accounts for maybe 10% of Christians
Id like to see where you came up with that percentage, relating specifically to the genesis account mentioned above.
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

TheVeganAtheist wrote: How have you come to that conclusion? In what way have you determined the level of ridiculousness?
I could ask you the same, because you made the claim first, but I'll answer.

See the definition of ridiculous:
ri·dic·u·lous adjective \rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\
: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous
ri·dic·u·lous [ri-dik-yuh-luhs]
adjective
1. causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ridiculous

rid·i·cule [rid-i-kyool]
noun
1. speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
verb (used with object), rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing.
2. to deride; make fun of.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ridicule?s=t
rid·i·cule noun \ˈri-də-ˌkyül\
: the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridicule

de·ride [dih-rahyd]
verb (used with object), de·rid·ed, de·rid·ing.
to laugh at in scorn or contempt; scoff or jeer at; mock.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deride?s=t

de·ride verb \di-ˈrīd, dē-\
: to talk or write about (someone or something) in a very critical or insulting way : to say that (someone or something) is ridiculous or has no value
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deride


As you should be able to see, the definition of ridicule reduces to two basic categorical claims, with regards to ridicule/derision:

1. Causing/Arousing
2. Worthy of/Deserving

With regards to the first, you are plainly wrong.

These two notions do not cause or arouse the same amount of ridicule, even with regards to their respective frequency of expression.
The idea that the Bible is literal, there was really a global flood, the Earth is just a couple thousand years old, and there's a grand scientific conspiracy led by Satan to cover up evidence of creation is much more widely and harshly ridiculed -- as a matter of breadth and severity of ridicule.

It makes a larger number of unsubstantiated claims.
It directly rejects science (which is demonstrably right)
It asserts that the Bible is perfect, true, literal- and maintains every claim therein.

...While the other only somewhat dubiously bends the interpretation of the Bible (which has no credibility anyway).

Now, it may be more ridiculed by fundamentalists, because it claims the Bible is mistaken in some places and not perfect -- but are we really judging what's ridiculous based on what fundamentalists ridicule?

With regards to the wider population, these modernized "science-friendly" views are accepted with respect by most Christians even when they don't agree with them because they acknowledge Jesus (which is considered the most important point), held by some 10% or so of them (not the exact views, but some variation thereupon, from which position ridicule is not forthcoming), and much more widely tolerated and ignored by non-Christians because they are not to such a well understood degree contradicting science.

With regards to the scientific and skeptical community, this gulf is even more apparent- while scientists and skeptics strongly distance themselves from young Earth creationism, some actually subscribe to views similar (while almost nobody has an identical view to anybody else) to that which this person articulated themselves- Kenneth Miller's beliefs about the bible are actually quite similar in many ways


As to the second matter- of worth of deservedness of ridicule, THAT is a value judgement, which can be duly answered by consequential evaluations of the moral worth of each, respectively.

Do you really think questioning the credibility of the Bible, and bending its words to fit science is more deleterious to the world at large than denying the credibility of science, and trying to distort it to fit Biblical literalism?

Or do you think that somehow Christianity will become more difficult to defeat entirely (if that is your goal) if Christians retreat from Biblical literalism, so it is better to use ridicule more severely in those making an attempt to flee in order to cut off their escape route?

If so, that strikes me as the same kind of reasoning used by some few animal rights activists to fiercely oppose any and all animal welfare- because improving conditions of animals now will make some hypothetical future liberation more difficult.

It's a course of reasoning I don't agree with.

Or is it something else?

Perhaps it's a more deontological claim of falsehood- whereby any falsehood is seen as equally contemptuous, no matter its effect or degree of untruth?

I'll debunk anything you have, but In order to argue against whatever reasoning you may be using to determine that these two things are deserving of equal ridicule, considering breadth and severity, I need to know what that reasoning is.

I can't outline and debunk every possible fallacy you may be making in assigning these things equal value, because potential fallacies are beyond count.

If I haven't already covered it, please justify your claim, and I can debunk it.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:
much less arrogant and more subtle sort that does NOT presume to directly do battle with proven science
less arrogant? They presume the bible doesnt mean what it actually says, and so reinterpret it to say what they want it to say so that it better aligns with the science.
Yes, and?

It's much less arrogant to accept proven science than to reject proven science.
It's much less arrogant to question the infallibility of some ancient scripture that has virtually no credibility anyway than assert said literal infallibility against all evidence.

So, he's stretching some interpretations... of something that has no real scientific evidence one way or another. So what? Only fundamentalists should really care that he's questioning the perfection of the Bible.

It's unlikely that it means that, sure. And maybe it's a little bit ridiculous. But there are orders of magnitude of difference between the two.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Especially the bit regarding the genesis account being from the perspective of god from the surface of the planet, and that on day 4 the clouds parted revealing the already formed sun and moon. Ive watched every debate I can find, and Ive never heard anyone argue that before.
Those views don't usually come up in the kind of debates you watch. Scientists are usually only debating Young Earth creationists, and ideas that they consider particularly anti-scientific and dangerous. Hardly anybody cares when somebody comes up with an apparently pro-science idea that conflicts with the Bible.

If you want to see views like these represented in debate format, you have to watch more Christian on Christian debates.

And even then, you won't usually see the conservatives ridiculing the liberal interpretations.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I've seen many, and they do talk about a local flood, but not anyone Ive seen argues that the scribes copied the bible wrong and put in their wrong interpretation of it being a global flood.
It... usually goes without saying. How else would it get in there?

There's a lot of stuff like this out there too:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

In terms of web hits, arguments against a global flood float to the top. There are a number of explanations for the text itself, from mistranslation, to mistakes, to misinterpretations.

Those documentaries about the "local flood" are already assuming an audience of mostly non-literalist Christians who are open to the idea.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:
This view accounts for maybe 10% of Christians
Id like to see where you came up with that percentage, relating specifically to the genesis account mentioned above.
Specifically? I'm not sure what you want.

You'd be hard pressed to find two Christians who agree exactly on every point. It's this kind of "make the bible fit science" reasoning I'm talking about. And that number applies conservatively to the local flood ideas, but similar reasoning is used to justify genesis (when they are even familiar with Genesis, which many Christians are not).

Most commonly, you'll see that they'll say that a day isn't a literal day, but it's an age, or God's work days (spaced out), or there's a gap between the two genesis accounts and they represent two events, a the whole thing is topically organized revelation to a human (over several days), or something else. But most generally, that these are ways of explaining things to ancient peoples, so they're not so exact.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... l-or-local

It's actually pretty painful to read or watch Christians argue with each other about these things, but they take it as if it's a serious matter to discuss, and there's a sizable population of Christians who advocate the view of a local flood.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three ... d-god.aspx

28% believe the bible is the inspired word of God and is literal/perfect.
vs.
47% believe it is the inspired word of God, and is more figurative, subject to interpretation. (like this apologist), non-literal, and not necessarily perfect.

The survey isn't really great, because it's not so much of a Binary, and interpretations of each story vary, but it is at least marginally informative.

76% are Christians- so that's either polling error, or 1% of Christians think the Bible is mythology, fables, etc.

However, more specifically regarding Noah's Arc story, other sources suggest that nearly 60% of Americans think it's a literal, global flood.

Now, I don't know the exact distribution of that number, but I'd guess they lean more on the literalists.

That's some 16% of Christians, who believe in the Local flood account, or no flood (but more often a local flood)
I think 10% is a reasonable conservative estimate, given the popularity (among literalists and non-literalists) of the flood account, and the local flood notion.

The same kind of reasoning is broadly applied to every area of the Bible by most of the same people.
E.g. the people who believe in a local flood are also more likely to take a similar approach to genesis, in reconciling it with science.
User avatar
TheVeganAtheist
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by TheVeganAtheist »

Wow brimestoneSalad,
way to make an a mountain out of a molehill. I made a casual flippant remark regarding how ridiculous the comments made by the podcast guest, not a well reasoned evidence based comparison of all theological claims. I think you need to pick your battles a bit more. With responses like yours, Id rather keep my opinions to myself rather than express them on my own forum.
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Wow brimestoneSalad,
way to make an a mountain out of a molehill. I made a casual flippant remark regarding how ridiculous the comments made by the podcast guest, not a well reasoned evidence based comparison of all theological claims.
And... I responded pretty casually at first. It wasn't a big deal, but I think it was worth pointing out that while the claim is a little ridiculous, it's not AS ridiculous as the alternative Young Earth/Literalist claim.

Then you asked me to substantiate my counterclaim.
And I think I did that for the most part...

I thought you were serious about this assertion, and you wanted to discuss it - otherwise why ask so many questions and challenge my conclusion? :?
TheVeganAtheist wrote:I think you need to pick your battles a bit more.
But... I didn't pick this battle...

You said:

"Still just as ridiculous as the others"

I said:

"No, not as ridiculous. It's still wrong, but it's substantially less deserving of ridicule in its wrongness,"

And briefly explained why. Seriously, not a big deal. Just saying "hey, you're a little mistaken, and here's why"
I didn't write an essay, because I thought a brief note would be more than enough.

Then you jumped on me:
How have you come to that conclusion? In what way have you determined the level of ridiculousness?
less arrogant? They presume the bible doesnt mean what it actually says, and so reinterpret it to say what they want it to say so that it better aligns with the science.[...]
Id like to see where you came up with that percentage, relating specifically to the genesis account mentioned above.
Making a challenge to my pretty short and simple comment (which agreed with you that it was still wrong, just less deserving of ridicule).

As requested by you, I expanded upon the argument and substantiated every comment I made.

Including breaking down how I came up with an estimate of 10%, and how I don't consider the exact details of the claim as relevant as the spirit of the claim in categorizing them (e.g. creative interpretation of the Bible to force it to fit with known science, claiming scriptural mistakes, etc.). There are dozens of iterations of these notions, which all fall around the same lines.

I could list them if you want.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:With responses like yours, Id rather keep my opinions to myself rather than express them on my own forum.
Sorry for... correcting... erroneous claims?

Don't be afraid to debate me. I'm not going to take it personally if you disagree with what I say.

I think discussing these things, and correcting misconceptions, is both interesting and important.

IMO, when you make erroneous claims like saying Young Earth Literalism, and slightly dubious reinterpretations of the Bible are equally ridiculous, it damages the credibility of your overall argument -- from any outside perspective, they obviously are not equally ridiculous.

Moderate people will take you as an extremist and fundamentalist anti-theist, and not be terribly interested in anything else you say after making a claim like that.

I also think it's important to congratulate and even reward Christians on making progress towards accepting science.
Yes, they're still wrong. But they're at least less wrong than they were, and giving them a few carrots along the way isn't a bad idea. These are people who are moving into a position of becoming allies to reason against the fundamentalists.

Opening the Bible up to interpretation is what allows people to start using reason and personal moral judgement instead of being fundamentalists, and it's progress in the right direction.


If you don't want to discuss anything with me, that's fine.

I'll stop correcting you when you say something wrong from here on out. It's your forum, and I can respect that.
User avatar
TheVeganAtheist
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by TheVeganAtheist »

brimstoneSalad wrote: If you don't want to discuss anything with me, that's fine.

I'll stop correcting you when you say something wrong from here on out. It's your forum, and I can respect that.
Im sorry if I came off on you. I do want everyone to feel free to discuss any topic on the forum. If i say something incorrect, id like to know about it.
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Religion and Science?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Im sorry if I came off on you. I do want everyone to feel free to discuss any topic on the forum. If i say something incorrect, id like to know about it.
Thanks.

Like you, I think word usage is important (which words we use, and where we use them) because it conveys a subtle message.
Sometimes we say things we don't really mean to say out of habit- I just think it's good to point these things out so we can improve our word usage, and convey messages more clearly and consistently.
Post Reply