by jimwalton » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:16 pm
> Can you give some examples of what you mean here?
Sure. The mythological Enuma Elish creation account and the Bible's creation account are worlds apart. While there are a few similarities, the differences are profound: monotheism, the eternity of God, a divine unity of purpose, God is good rather than selfish and murderous, the Enuma Elish is mostly about bringing other gods into existence, the purpose and role of humankind. The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible story of the flood share more similarities, but again the differences are profound. In GE the wickedness of mankind "keeps the gods awake." In the Bible, it offends a holy God. In GE, Utnaphishtim lies; in the Bible, Noah is righteous. The time frames of the stories are significantly different. The fundamental character of the stories are different in portraying the character of God, the nature of sin, and the place of man in the universe.
And, for instance, other religions have stories of dying and rising gods. The Greeks' and Romans' are tied to seasons of the year—stories of planting and harvest.
Attis was conceived when a virgin place a magic almond inner breast. Her son castrated himself when he found out about Attis's true identity. This is also tied to the agricultural year.
Krishna is said to have died and rose again, not in resurrection, but in reincarnation.
These stories are nothing like the biblical story of Jesus' resurrection. They have nothing in common with each other.
> Are you really claiming to know any of these things? On what basis?
As you asked, and I said, on the basis of supernatural revelation. There is no other way to know such things.
> What evidence?
There are many evidences that the biblical writers intended to be speaking historical truth, not mythological theology. The resurrection of Christ stands out as a miracle that is subject to investigation. The theological claims of the Bible are evidenced by what we see in the changes in people's lives, just as the Bible says.
> And as for the claim that God wrote a book, again, what specifically in the Bible could only have been written by a being such as God?
The prophecies are pretty good proof that the Bible was divinely written. The weatherman can't even get today's weather right, and no one can accurate predict the end score of a football game.
> You've already conceded that it's an ancient text and a product of a particular time and place.
That doesn't contribute to the discussion of whether it's true or false. You can't possible be claiming that because it's old, it's false. There's no logic there. Isaac Newton's observations about the laws of physics are old, too.
> [Science is] the only way to test truth claims.
Of course it's not. There's inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Beside, suppose you offend me and I say I forgive you. Is science the only way to test the truth of that? Of course not. Science isn't even in that picture. What if you claim something is not fair? Is your claim true? Maybe. Can you test is with science? Of course not.
> I would like some demonstrable facts.
Most of what we know is not based on demonstrable facts: I like apple pie, I forgive you, I felt chilly yesterday, I saw a beautiful sunset five days ago, Bill is my friend, that wasn’t fair, I'm in love with Denise, I’m afraid of heights, my favorite movie is “Gladiator,” I feel at peace with myself. There are millions of these. We’re just in the wrong arena to think that we can use science to prove these things. There are also things that exist, that are coherent, but not scientific: peace, justice, love, memory, reason, values, to name a few. There are disciplines that have nothing to do with science, but they are still legitimate ways to know things: jurisprudence, economics, history, literature, politics, art, philosophy, logic, and theology. As it turns out, probably most of what we know is not subject to scientific verification, nor can it be considered scientific knowledge.
> Juries don't decide what is true
In a courtroom, the scientists certainly don't decide what's true. Or we would stop trial by jury and institute trial by laboratory. Juries weigh intent, motive, environment, perspective, etc., things that are outside of the purview of science.
> They are sometimes incorrect.
Scientists are sometimes incorrect also. Science is not the only way to test truth claims, nor is it always reliable.
> Please give an example of a truth that has been discovered without using any form of experimentation to establish its truth.
OJ Simpson is guilty. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Donald Trump is an idiot. I am an introvert. Beethoven's symphonies are pure genius. Picasso's paintings are filled with meaning.
> That question doesn't even make sense.
Sure it makes sense. Which portrait was the more accurate, the more true to who Van Gogh was? Which portrait portrays him more reliably? Accuracy to truth is not just a scientific question.
> I'm applying the only available measure the human race has yet devised to discover truths independently of their own bias.
It is not the only available measure. As a matter of fact, we are the first generation to claim such a thing. Never in history, until now, have metaphysics and physics been seen in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.
> Can you give some examples of what you mean here?
Sure. The mythological Enuma Elish creation account and the Bible's creation account are worlds apart. While there are a few similarities, the differences are profound: monotheism, the eternity of God, a divine unity of purpose, God is good rather than selfish and murderous, the Enuma Elish is mostly about bringing other gods into existence, the purpose and role of humankind. The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible story of the flood share more similarities, but again the differences are profound. In GE the wickedness of mankind "keeps the gods awake." In the Bible, it offends a holy God. In GE, Utnaphishtim lies; in the Bible, Noah is righteous. The time frames of the stories are significantly different. The fundamental character of the stories are different in portraying the character of God, the nature of sin, and the place of man in the universe.
And, for instance, other religions have stories of dying and rising gods. The Greeks' and Romans' are tied to seasons of the year—stories of planting and harvest.
Attis was conceived when a virgin place a magic almond inner breast. Her son castrated himself when he found out about Attis's true identity. This is also tied to the agricultural year.
Krishna is said to have died and rose again, not in resurrection, but in reincarnation.
These stories are nothing like the biblical story of Jesus' resurrection. They have nothing in common with each other.
> Are you really claiming to know any of these things? On what basis?
As you asked, and I said, on the basis of supernatural revelation. There is no other way to know such things.
> What evidence?
There are many evidences that the biblical writers intended to be speaking historical truth, not mythological theology. The resurrection of Christ stands out as a miracle that is subject to investigation. The theological claims of the Bible are evidenced by what we see in the changes in people's lives, just as the Bible says.
> And as for the claim that God wrote a book, again, what specifically in the Bible could only have been written by a being such as God?
The prophecies are pretty good proof that the Bible was divinely written. The weatherman can't even get today's weather right, and no one can accurate predict the end score of a football game.
> You've already conceded that it's an ancient text and a product of a particular time and place.
That doesn't contribute to the discussion of whether it's true or false. You can't possible be claiming that because it's old, it's false. There's no logic there. Isaac Newton's observations about the laws of physics are old, too.
> [Science is] the only way to test truth claims.
Of course it's not. There's inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Beside, suppose you offend me and I say I forgive you. Is science the only way to test the truth of that? Of course not. Science isn't even in that picture. What if you claim something is not fair? Is your claim true? Maybe. Can you test is with science? Of course not.
> I would like some demonstrable facts.
Most of what we know is not based on demonstrable facts: I like apple pie, I forgive you, I felt chilly yesterday, I saw a beautiful sunset five days ago, Bill is my friend, that wasn’t fair, I'm in love with Denise, I’m afraid of heights, my favorite movie is “Gladiator,” I feel at peace with myself. There are millions of these. We’re just in the wrong arena to think that we can use science to prove these things. There are also things that exist, that are coherent, but not scientific: peace, justice, love, memory, reason, values, to name a few. There are disciplines that have nothing to do with science, but they are still legitimate ways to know things: jurisprudence, economics, history, literature, politics, art, philosophy, logic, and theology. As it turns out, probably most of what we know is not subject to scientific verification, nor can it be considered scientific knowledge.
> Juries don't decide what is true
In a courtroom, the scientists certainly don't decide what's true. Or we would stop trial by jury and institute trial by laboratory. Juries weigh intent, motive, environment, perspective, etc., things that are outside of the purview of science.
> They are sometimes incorrect.
Scientists are sometimes incorrect also. Science is not the only way to test truth claims, nor is it always reliable.
> Please give an example of a truth that has been discovered without using any form of experimentation to establish its truth.
OJ Simpson is guilty. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Donald Trump is an idiot. I am an introvert. Beethoven's symphonies are pure genius. Picasso's paintings are filled with meaning.
> That question doesn't even make sense.
Sure it makes sense. Which portrait was the more accurate, the more true to who Van Gogh was? Which portrait portrays him more reliably? Accuracy to truth is not just a scientific question.
> I'm applying the only available measure the human race has yet devised to discover truths independently of their own bias.
It is not the only available measure. As a matter of fact, we are the first generation to claim such a thing. Never in history, until now, have metaphysics and physics been seen in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.