Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[Adept]

I know that I'm here, and now is now, but beyond that everything is pretty much guesswork.

An internet cookie for anyone who spots the literature reference.

 

[Ray]

... I can build both a case proving his existance, and disproving it. The Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc all cater to certain audiences, and certain biases, depending on what they wish to push at that moment.

As far as I'm concerned, proof only exist in systems like mathematics. In other areas we can only provide evidence of something. Then we have to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to support a conclusion. As well as looking for and weighing evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we humans still seem to make decisions clouded by our own biases.

And it states that where? Please, an outside the bible referene only here.

Are you saying that the bible is an uncredible source of evidence, or that it needs corroboration? If you have decided that it is not credible then there is no need for you to go further.

... be prepared to provide verifiable evidence of your rebuttle. I made statements based on my current knowledge base...

Believe what you wish to believe, but understand that science and history will not always back up ones beliefs.

Your position seems well researched, thought-out and decided. It is not always possible for science and history to arrive at the truth of an event. If you personally witness something then you are more likely to believe it really happened. There may be times when we question what it was we witnessed because it seemed incredible or we didn't see it from the right "angle."

I'm not trying to sell anyone on whether Jesus existed or not. Just to point out that all human systems (religion and science included) are based upon human abstract constructs that may or may be so. But we believe them.

Take, for example, the criticism of the bible where it speaks of Jonah being swallowed by either a "great fish" or a "whale." Today, it seems to be two conflicting statements because we know that a whale is a "mammal," not a "fish." The categorization of life is a "man made" idea and it has not always been the same. Was it a fish, was it a whale, did it even happen, is there any point to trying to convince anyone either way?

Not to worry though, if we have any conciousness after death we just might learn the truth first-hand.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Tongsau's comments in bold:

Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs.

The Bible and Christian orthodoxy has been under constant assault since the eleventh century. Study your church history, and then move on to The Enlightenment. Scholars attempted to harmonize scripture with reason, and then the two parted. Ne'er the twain shall meet, we can now say with some confidence.

100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left.

Mmmm. I've heard this claim made before by an Evangelical during my first online debate. He wasn't forthcoming with the information. How about you? I'd love to see all this "proof." Has it been proven, for instance, that donkeys can talk? That rabbits chew their "cud"? Are bats birds? Is the value of "pi" three? Can the Earth's rotation be stopped? Were the stars formed after our sun, and plants created before the sun's creation? All this is in the Bible. Where and how has it been "proven?"

Or are you going to tell us those were translational errors?

We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them.

Nope. Sorry. Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. It was phrased in the third person in reference to Moses. Stylistic analysis reveals a number of different authors.


Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile.

No. It wasn't. It was written during the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). We know enough about the Babylonian exile from the other books of the Old Testament (and other Jewish accounts) to ascertain that the author of Daniel didn't really know what he was writing about.

The author of Daniel's account of the seige of Jerusalem conflicts with that found in Jeremiah. He repeatedly refers to the "Chaldeans," a term not used in the time of the Exile. A figure appearing in Daniel--Balthasar-- was never king, and neither he nor his father had any blood-relationship to Nebuchadnezzer. The linguistic style of the Hebrew Bible dates Daniel to a period much later than the Exile.

This book has been an embarrassment to Christians for centuries. They've struggled with it, debated it, rationalized it. Even a person with a passing knowledge of ancient history...or a person who has actually read the Biblical accounts of the Exile...can spot its flaws.

Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

As far as I'm concerned, proof only exist in systems like mathematics. In other areas we can only provide evidence of something.

In the context that Bob was speaking, "proof" and "evidence" amount to the same thing. You are speaking of a different context, that of mathematical proofs, which aren't really the same thing.

Then we have to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to support a conclusion. As well as looking for and weighing evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we humans still seem to make decisions clouded by our own biases.

Thus the need for falsifiability and peer review. Both of which are part of the scientific method.

In all honesty, though, these quasi-nihilistic arguments (which tend to border on epistemological relativism) will really get us nowhere. It will do no good to say that because all positions are "clouded by our own biases" that they are all on equal intellectual footing. Namely, because such a claim is, by its very nature, inherently self-contradictory (i.e., it claims to be a universal 'truth' devoid of personal bias itself).

Are you saying that the bible is an uncredible source of evidence, or that it needs corroboration?

The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable.

It is not always possible for science and history to arrive at the truth of an event.

This is true. However, in this case, the available evidence clearly weighs in one side over the other.

If you personally witness something then you are more likely to believe it really happened. There may be times when we question what it was we witnessed because it seemed incredible or we didn't see it from the right "angle."

Not to mention there is a growing body of research indicating that "eyewitness" accounts can be far from accurate.

Just to point out that all human systems (religion and science included) are based upon human abstract constructs that may or may be so. But we believe them.

Yes. And some of those "human systems" are based an a posterior events observed in life. And, some are not. You have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, and not just make the nihilistically contradictory statement that since they are all made by imperfect people that they're all on equal footing as far as truthfullness goes.

Take, for example, the criticism of the bible where it speaks of Jonah being swallowed by either a "great fish" or a "whale." Today, it seems to be two conflicting statements because we know that a whale is a "mammal," not a "fish." The categorization of life is a "man made" idea and it has not always been the same. Was it a fish, was it a whale, did it even happen, is there any point to trying to convince anyone either way?

This entire argument, in my opinion, is nothing short of pulling hairs. I fail to see the significance here.

Not to worry though, if we have any conciousness after death we just might learn the truth first-hand.

The entire notion of personal consciousness after death is, to be frank, rather ridiculous. Now, this is not to say that the consciousness cannot survive death. I am of the opinion that it quite possibly can. However, divorced from one's reality as a sexually dimorphic (you're no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' when you're dead), social (you're no longer an 'American' or a 'black' or 'white' when you're dead), and relational (you no longer having a working relationship with anyone still alive) being, you cannot feasibly make the claim that you --- as in the personal ego-self you --- has survived death. Perhaps what underlies your personal self has, but you will have died with the body.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

"if you believe it, it's not a lie" - george costanza (paraphrased)

 

[Ray]

In the context that Bob was speaking, "proof" and "evidence" amount to the same thing. You are speaking of a different context, that of mathematical proofs, which aren't really the same thing.

Proof is proof and evidence is evidence. They are different things in my book. But heck, if someone is nutzo then absolute proof [in their minds] might be nothing more than lunatic imagination [as seen by others].

Thus the need for falsifiability and peer review. Both of which are part of the scientific method.

That's nice. But most people don't particpate in the scientific method. Most of us have been conditioned to believe the expert/authority. We get to sit in a classroom and hear a sermon [lecture] from a believer [teacher/professor]. Most of us need to get out more and think for ourselves. Now, I'm not saying the scientific method is invalid...what I am saying is there is every reason for me to challenge and ponder what I'm being told.

Not too long ago, one of my sociology teachers drew a diagram as a way to more easily explain something to us. Well, she drew it absolutely incorrect and I tried to politely point it out...she angrily cut me off and stated that she was right and she knew it and she had several sources that proved it. Later I sent her an email that referenced our textbook and several university web-sites. A week later she apologized and redrew the diagram (otherwise we'd have missed several exam questions). We need to do more than sit and believe everything we're told (whether we're told by the scientist, philosopher, priest, etc).

In all honesty, though, these quasi-nihilistic arguments (which tend to border on epistemological relativism) will really get us nowhere. It will do no good to say that because all positions are "clouded by our own biases" that they are all on equal intellectual footing...

I'm going to have to buy a dictionary to keep up with you. Aren't we clouded by our own biases? I didn't say that put us on equal intellectual footing, nor did I say that our biases made us wrong...the intention was to imply that we must do more self examination [maybe I should say "I" should do more self-examination because, to me, it sounds like you've got it all figured out; Although I have my beliefs, I'm still weighing the evidence].

Yes. And some of those "human systems" are based an a posterior events observed in life. And, some are not. You have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, and not just make the nihilistically contradictory statement that since they are all made by imperfect people that they're all on equal footing as far as truthfullness goes.

I kant agree with your evaluation. I don't say that all people's statments are on equal footing in truthfullness nor correctness - what I hope to say is that we all need not just blindly accept what we're told (by scientists or by preachers).

This entire argument, in my opinion, is nothing short of pulling hairs. I fail to see the significance here.

Just trying to show an example of where people haven't thought enough about what they're being told. There are actually people who use the two references to Jonah to show that the bible is inaccurate. In this specific instance, the two references are not contradictory...to know that one needs to do a little digging. Now, don't think I need you to give me a hundred references that demonstrate the bible to be incorrect cause I'm not arguing the point (and I'm not saying you're right or wrong, either). I'm just trying to demonstrate that more thought and examination should be given by most people; (you sound like you may be one of those who do actually think).

The entire notion of personal consciousness after death is, to be frank, rather ridiculous. Now, this is not to say that the consciousness cannot survive death. I am of the opinion that it quite possibly can.

Darn it. This is one of those things that we haven't been able to design experiments to demonstrate one way or the other. I would feel better if we could; unfortunately we all have to wait to find out.

However, divorced from one's reality as a sexually dimorphic (you're no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' when you're dead), social (you're no longer an 'American' or a 'black' or 'white' when you're dead), and relational (you no longer having a working relationship with anyone still alive) being, you cannot feasibly make the claim that you --- as in the personal ego-self you --- has survived death. Perhaps what underlies your personal self has, but you will have died with the body.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there is a ressurection and our spirits [if they exist] are put into perfected bodies that are male and female (us, as we are now). Maybe we are reborn to a higher or lower position (or organism) based on our accumulated karma. Maybe we cease to exist. It's nice to see that you have been thinking about it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I kant agree with your evaluation.

I can see why you KANT.

Well, then, don't try and HUMEor him. And don't HEGEL with him or PLATO his strong points. LOCKE on to the weaker aspects of what Heretic wrote and give him a dose of what he NIETZSCHEs the most, a good intellectual drubbing on the merits of philosophy. He won't be able to HAAKE it.

Cook his BACON, Ray! DEWEY unto him what he would do unto us. Give him a taste of his own medicine and MASHAM like a potato.

MAIMON Ray! MACH him your bi-yotch!

I can't MILL around here anymore. I have to go get coffee. Lack of caffeine tends to make me LEWIS my train of thought. Most of you KUHN relate, I'm sure. Off to Starbucks!

Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Descartes you off if you keep it up......

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Descartes you off if you keep it up......

AYER you going to visit me in the looney bin WEIL I'm there? I hope you COMTE see me. I've heard the place is FULLER interesting, if slightly whacked, people.

Okay. I'll stop. I'm running out of philosophers anyway.

Besides, I don't want to sidetrack Heretic and Ray. Where'd Tongsau go?


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Actually, Steve, Ray is mostly talking about the ways of knowing outlined by Charles Pierce. It really isn't relevant to any discussion of the historicity of the Bible, which Ray doesn't seem to subscribe to anyway.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One of the things Peirce's work has to do with is the demystification of language--all kinds of language, whether we're talking theology, philosophy or whatever.

It's all very well to believe that one's language is simply rational, or that throwing names at issues solves issues.

Regrettably, that's not the case.

 

[heretic888]

Ummmm.... right.

 

[Ray]

Actually, Steve, Ray is mostly talking about the ways of knowing outlined by Charles Pierce. It really isn't relevant to any discussion of the historicity of the Bible, which Ray doesn't seem to subscribe to anyway./QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the ways of knowing; I'm just saying people ought to dig into things and not be parrots (I'm not calling you one). I just think too many people just listen to the experts without thinking.

Comments like: "The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable" can't just be accepted at face value. We may (or may not) have heard about disagreements between historians and the bible record for which evidence was subsequently discovered to support the bible record. And there are those items still in disagreement. Of course, some supposed history in the bible is currently held to be false and is likely to remain so. Anyone interested in the veracity of the bible should do more than listen to us; they should dig into it and make up their own minds.

The scientific method which was referred to earlier is a set of rules made up by people. The first rule is: there are no supernatural explanations allowed (which means "no gods or goddesses"). And that's okay...I have no problem with that. In fact, I enjoy science and some of its subsequent applications by industry (I can't wait until gene splicing allows me to grow a lucky rabbit's foot right at the end of my leg).

With that, I'll bid a graceful exit to this conversation and let y'all duke it out.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not talking about the ways of knowing; I'm just saying people ought to dig into things and not be parrots (I'm not calling you one). I just think too many people just listen to the experts without thinking.

Actually, what you are talking about is exactly Pierce's ways of knowing. Specifically, you are referring to his Method of Authority --- believing something because an "authority" has told you so.

Not to be coy, but this isn't news here. I've heard these arguments before.

Comments like: "The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable" can't just be accepted at face value. We may (or may not) have heard about disagreements between historians and the bible record for which evidence was subsequently discovered to support the bible record. And there are those items still in disagreement. Of course, some supposed history in the bible is currently held to be false and is likely to remain so. Anyone interested in the veracity of the bible should do more than listen to us; they should dig into it and make up their own minds.

Yeah, that's all well and good...

But, that doesn't change the fact that I was simply summarizing my own viewpoint and position on the subject. I have more than provided support to back up my claims --- both on this and other threads --- and I don't feel the need to copy-and-paste the same arguments over and over every time somebody brings it up. Use the search function. This is all already laid out.

The scientific method which was referred to earlier is a set of rules made up by people.

Strictly speaking, "the scientific method" (i.e., the process of acquiring and assimilating a posteriori knowledge into one's worldview) is already developmentally programmed into human beings when they are born.

Now, I'm not saying infants are born with the ability to do chemistry equations or run an EEG machine. But, the capacity to empirically observe data, 'integrate' it into one's developing perspective of the world, and move on to collect more data is an inborn capacity (as any developmental psychologist worth his/her salt will tell you).

So, in a sense, we humans are kinda "programmed" to be scientists. At least to a degree.

The first rule is: there are no supernatural explanations allowed (which means "no gods or goddesses").

If that's what you believe is a "rule" of the "scientific method", then whoever explained it to you clearly did not know what they were talking about. The scientific method is a way of acquiring knowledge concerning that which is testable and falsifiable (to use Karl Popper's term).

It makes no judgments whatsoever about untestable or unfalsifiable phenomena. You are collapsing "science" and "scientism" here. They're two different animals.

 

[sahmi]

A free exchange of ideas does not mean that you automatically discard the old ones for new ones. One may prefer to think that all (both old and new) ideas are thoughtfully considered... ie.- put through the experiential computer that is oneself. Then (only then) should the ideas be kept as truth or put aside as something else.
With matters of faith, I suppose that means that an idea can be held as truth as long as it is not factually disputed. An example would be the creation/evolution argument. While one could argue both sides using proven data, neither of the two could be absolutely refuted.

 

[Ray]

If that's what you believe is a "rule" of the "scientific method", then whoever explained it to you clearly did not know what they were talking about. The scientific method is a way of acquiring knowledge concerning that which is testable and falsifiable (to use Karl Popper's term).

It makes no judgments whatsoever about untestable or unfalsifiable phenomena. You are collapsing "science" and "scientism" here. They're two different animals.

Sociology and Psychology claim to be sciences, in the text books which I purchased last semester (in quest of a very overdue degree) say the first rule of the scientific method is that no supernatural explanations are allowed. Yes, the 4 steps of the scientific method are: observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify. But no miracles are allowed.

Strictly speaking, "the scientific method" (i.e., the process of acquiring and assimilating a posteriori knowledge into one's worldview) is already developmentally programmed into human beings when they are born.

Now, I'm not saying infants are born with the ability to do chemistry equations or run an EEG machine. But, the capacity to empirically observe data, 'integrate' it into one's developing perspective of the world, and move on to collect more data is an inborn capacity (as any developmental psychologist worth his/her salt will tell you).

So, in a sense, we humans are kinda "programmed" to be scientists. At least to a degree.

Humans are "programmed" to poop, suck and cry. Humans (some of them) LEARN to critically evaluate arguements and design tests to confirm (or disprove) our ideas - other humans just believe what they're told.

For a minute there, you had me...I believed you might have known what you were talking about.

 

[heretic888]

Actually, clinging to an idea or belief that has been disproven is actually another one of Pierce's ways of knowing: the Method of Tenacity. In social psychology, the same principle is referred to as belief perseverance.

Usually, individuals maintain debunked or disproven positions by providing hypothetical 'what if' arguments that could explain why the belief could still be true, but never actually bring any counterevidence to support the position. Truth by speculation, it seems, is good enough for them.

And, as far as I know, only one side of the evolution/creation debate has actually provided any qualifiable data or evidence to support their position. Traditional creationist arguments rely on logical postulates (a la Aquinas) based on presumed assumptions about reality (i.e., that an infinite chain of causation is "impossible", or that only one "unmoved mover" can explain the diversity of the universe).

Still, my suspicions are that a lot of these critiques have their ultimate source in the current pluralistic movement in the West --- which is well and good in itself, but ultimately self-destroying when taken too far out of its context (as we see with silly ideas like 'cultural relativism', which is blatantly hypocritical).

Just my opinion, anyway. Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.

Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

Man: What!?

Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

 

[heretic888]

Sociology and Psychology claim to be sciences, in the text books which I purchased last semester (in quest of a very overdue degree) say the first rule of the scientific method is that no supernatural explanations are allowed. Yes, the 4 steps of the scientific method are: observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify. But no miracles are allowed.

*sigh* Oy vey.

Well, I don't know the books you've purchased (or even if you actually are attenting college as you claim).

However, if I were to make a venture, my guess is you are horridly misinterpreting the actual point the authors were trying to make. The point of the scientific method is to validate that which is testable and falsifiable. If what you are calling "miracles" or "supernatural" cannot be tested, then scientists don't concern themselves with them.

But, again, science does not make any claims to that which cannot be tested. All science says is it cannot be tested, and thus we have no way of knowing if it is a valid position or not. That is not the same thing as saying its "false" or "wrong".

Humans are "programmed" to poop, suck and cry. Humans (some of them) LEARN to critically evaluate arguements and design tests to confirm (or disprove) our ideas - other humans just believe what they're told.

For a minute there, you had me...I believed you might have known what you were talking about.

Your background is clearly not in developmental psychology.

You should look up on traditional critiques of Jean Piaget's "underestimation" of infants. This is where you will find most of the studies concerning the inborn cognitive abilities of human beings (as infants). The actual meat of the critiques is that (akin to Piaget's overarching theory of constructionism) infants are inborn with the capacity to take in new sensory and perceptional data, 'integrate' it into an organized view of the world, and continue the process.

This process of integrating a posteriori knowledge into one's view of the world is what most of us call "the scientific method". It doesn't have to have laboratories and microscopes to be science.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

While one can only agree that falsifiability (it must be possible to prove that a proposition or theory is wrong) is essential to scientific method, the claim that people are hard-wired for something like science (a claim Freud also made, when he described Little Hans as, "the little scientist") suggests some of the holes in science as a way of knowing.

Mostly, it's because this drags an assumption (people are naturally scientific) right into the middle of the claim that science is purely logical and purely conscious.

One tends to agree with that assumption, of course. If you look at kids, they seem to be running all sorts of tests on themselves and the material world--but that's just personal observation, made from a certain viewpoint. And it's a problem in the middle of an argument that the, "other side," merely rests its claims on biased and untestable assumptions, as opposed to a science that is all about the abolition of any viewpoint at all so that "the facts," can emerge as what they always already were.

In response to another claim--sorry, but evolution is a fully-testable hypothesis. One that's been really well tested, through both observation and experiment, over the last century and a half. For example, there is a Creationist claim that the Earth is in fact quite young, and that such features as the Grand Canyon were made more or less overnight, in some great catastrophe.

This is demonstrably not true. Or to be fair, perhaps it is true--but if it is, everything we know about geology, physics, archaeology, astronomy and about six other scientific fields is completely wrong.

On the other hand, the claim that living things evolved from previous living things has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. Creationists simply refuse to look at the evidence (if I don't see it, it's not there), most notably in the completely wacko claim that there are no "missing links," no transitional forms, in the fossil record. Or they insistently claim that because evolution continues to develop as a scientific theory, it must be wrong--when in fact the core of what Darwin says really hasn't changed at all.

Why? because some people, apparently, need to believe that they're the apple of God's eye. That the universe revolves around the Earth--against thes, there's the humility of Mark Twain's "Extract From Cap'n Stormfield's Voyage to Heaven," where the good Captain, who's landed at the wrong dock in heaven, tries to explain to a group of angels who've never heard of Earth that it's the planet, "You know--the one the Savior saved."

The angels bow their heads at the mention of the Name. Then, one of them pipes up, "Which one?"

You can go with the scientific explanation of how we all got here. You can go with the literalist, fundamentalist Protestant (which is NOT the same as the general Christian) reading of Genesis. But if you try to go with both, either your head will explode or the contradictions in what you're saying will show up everywhere.

I still say that if you're religious and you insist upon rejecting the products of the human intellect and the nature of the material universe, you're missing the point. Back when humanism and science started as developments in Christian thought, they simply said that the Author of all things left us the Bible and the universe to read, so that we could learn and try to grow up. And they thought that if we didn't understand how the two Books fit together, it was because we were mortal and stupid--not because the Author screwed up.

Back when I went to Bible school regularly (boy, did THAT not take), they taught me that the New Testament superseded the Old, because "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life." They taught me that the age of obvious miracles was over, because we were supposed to have grown past the need for shiny toys and rattles.

Were they fibbin'?

Oh, and one other thing--if anybody wants to demand that we focus on the Text alone, look out. Then the lit crit with its roots in Biblical interpretation and Christian hermeneutics kicks in.