My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[FArchivist]

Like the belief that immunizations cause autism, leading to children dying from diseases that could have been prevented if they had been immunized.

I would like to point out that this particular belief has no basis in religion at all. It is instead predicated on a bunch of science woo, mostly started by Andrew Wakefield and the litigation firm that funded him.

If religion is merely a pastime, then arguing about it is like arguing about which is better - Star Trek or Star Wars. No matter how good your argument is, you're still arguing about fiction. The views of a religious fanatic should have no more bearing on education or politics than the views of a scifi fanboy.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.

Now, I have no problem with discussing the merits of a fictional universe, as long as we agree that the framework of the discussion is fiction. But as soon as you tell me that Tatooine really exists, I have no choice but to consider you delusional.

*shrugs* Prove that Tatooine does not really exist somewhere in the universe. For all I know and can prove, it may. Tatooine could possibly exist, especially if one is using current multiversal theory on the variants of modal realism in conjunction with David Lewis' counterpart theory. Similarly, in M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer). Each universe takes the form of a D-brane. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes. This would allow for a metafictional quantum inference that could create a Star Wars universe, complete with a Tattooine.

It doesn't work that way. A thing is true or false independent of whether one believes in it.

Not according to the uncertainty principle. Until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead, existing in simultaneous states. (And this doesn't even include the separate paths if one takes into account the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.)

You can believe that a god exists, but your belief doesn't make it true.

My belief (or your disbelief) does not make it untrue either.

You can have an opinion about that god's nature, but that opinion is moot if the god in question doesn't exist.

Well, then we will certainly know if my opinion is moot or not once the question is settled and God is disproved.

I think you would not do well with postmodern deconstructionism either. That or conversations about consensual reality. For instance, subjective idealists hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the world view which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they might live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality.

[Rapscallion]

Okay, Raps, I got to take exception to this. First of all, playing World of Warcraft is a waste of effort people could be instead into bettering humanity. So's hanging out here. So is drinking, buying shoes, screwing, and filling in Thundercats coloring books. Saying I shouldn't "believe" a certain way because I could be otherwise be out there curing cancer and saving orphans from burning buildings is, at best, grasping at farts.

It may be arrogance on my part, but I think hanging out here and having honest discussions is the sign of an above-average intellect.

Drinking - as a teetotaller, I'd tend to agree. However, that's recreation. It can also be proved to exist.

World of Warcraft is recreation as well - it doesn't represent itself as how the world we live in truly is. I would, however, quantify the WoW as a waste thing in my terms as being playing it obsessively day and night and living off the state as being a waste. Coming back from a twelve-hour shift and spending a couple of hours whacking orcs is recreation and stress relief. The former was my brother until I forced him to get a job by cutting him off my Internet connection.

Actually, drinking and WoW are very similar in this regard - taken to extremes they are damaging.

Filling in a Thunderca... have I been leaving my webcam on again? Anyway, that's how children learn art. Thundercats isn't portrayed as something real. I know there's a church of star trek out there somewhere - or at least I saw a documentary mentioning it a while ago. This is one of the more amusing links I came up with when looking for it. Not relevant, but funny. Star Trek and Star Wars and other such diversions are fictional and admit it. If people change their lives as a result of it and treat it as the word of a divinity, then there's more problems.

Saving orphans and the like - it doesn't quite have to be as extreme as that, but there's no reason to attribute said actions to the teachings of an unprovable deity. How about just doing it because it's the right thing to do?

Second, yes. Young people do that. Then they grow up. I have a really vivid memory of what being a kid was like. That's why young people call old people "sell outs", and "the man" and other epithets that describe what they swear they will never become and yet always do.

Most grow up.

And three: Good intentioned people need to knock it off because there is always some other person who does not know where to draw the line. Really.

Dude.

So, what exactly are you saying here? That my views are offensive? I'm not perfect. I don't go out and train to be a heart surgeon so I can save lives, but I do try to work to better myself and help others where I can. I like to think I've made a reasonable role model for others to follow in some regards. I try to make society more productive as part of it so we can afford more heart surgeons etc. I try to play my part.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.

The key word there is 'fiction'. For every aspect of science fiction that has been made into fact, there's plenty more than haven't. As a guide, there's a shitload of science fiction out there. Enough monkeys and enough typewriters and you have Shakespeare etc.

There's a difference between these two positions:

First - you can't prove that this old book that describes a divine force as being our creator and salvation is incorrect, so I'm going to live my life in a certain way, whether that be feeding the poor or killing infidels or any of the shades of grey between.

Second - you can't prove that this new book that describes alien robots from distant galaxies is incorrect, so I'll ... not do a thing differently.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Are you saying that you wouldn't do any of these things if they weren't affiliated with your church?

Unlikely, as by myself I do not have the resources. We protect each other and support each other. A guy gets laid off, we rally and find odd jobs to pay him for. Someone becomes ill we take up a collection so they don't lose their house that month. When I had surgery, a cooler full of ready to eat food showed up on my doorstep. Various groups need a meeting place we can provide one. So no. I can't do all that alone, and anyways I wouldn't even know about most of the needs. So that's exactly what I'm saying.

Rap: the point is, recreation is still recreation. It's not saving the world. By this logic, I can go to the movies and blow a little time and as long as it's fiction, it's okay. But if I spend the same amount of time in a church it's not okay because I happen to believe what I just saw.

Your views are not offensive, no. I didn't mean to imply that they were. I did find a few of your points weak and frankly reaching, and was trying to find a humorous way to tell you that.

Monkeys and typewriters do not produce Shakespeare, by the way. They produce the comments section over on YouTube.

[Ghel]

Edit: Ghel, you confuse me, but I hope you can explain your position.

Why do you accept at face value all the BAD things that are done in the name of religion as being religion's fault, but then claim that the good would happen anyway?

Also: She would probably not turn her church's unused back building into a community center if she didn't have a church.

All right, I'll clarify. I think that people are good or evil independent of their religious beliefs. That's what I was trying to get at in my response to Kinkoid's post. If she would do those good things anyway, what difference does it make if it's the church that houses them?

I think everybody in this discussion is basically good. However, religion can be, and has been, used as a tool to coerce good people into doing evil things. A number of examples have already been listed in this thread. That's not to say that that sort of coercion always happens, but it should be a reason to examine your beliefs to see whether they coincide with reality. Because the more out-of-tune with reality one's beliefs are, the more likely one can be convinced to do evil things in their name.

Unlikely, as by myself I do not have the resources. We protect each other and support each other.

You make it sound as if churches are the only ones who do charity work. Well, there are plenty of secular charities as well. If your church had to shut down for some reason, would you find another charity to support? Or would you just give it up because it wasn't run by your church?

I would like to point out that this particular belief has no basis in religion at all.

I didn't say it did. I merely said that it was a belief. But since the belief that immunizations cause autism has no basis in reality, it is every bit as dangerous as the belief that prayer heals.

Yet the views of a sci-fi fanboy can - and have- had lots of bearing on education and politics. For instance, the entirety of the American space program can pretty much be based on certain beliefs that were made prominent by science fiction from the 1880s to the 1930s, without a shred of evidence that they could be true.

Yes, we all know that fiction can have an effect on the real world. There is no doubt of that. However, it is still fiction. The people reading science fiction know (or ought to) that it is fiction. Turning science fiction into reality requires a process known as science. Using science, we can discover which parts of a story are true. Are you willing to subject your religion to science, so that we can discover which parts of it, if any, are true?

Prove that Tatooine does not really exist somewhere in the universe.

We really shouldn't have to be having a discussion of the burden of proof again. We've done this to death.

The person who claims that a thing exists has the largest burden of proof in a discussion. If I were claiming that no gods exist, I would still have a smaller burden of proof than the person who claims that a god does exist.

However, I am not claiming that no gods exist. I am claiming that (1) no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, and that (2) the Christian God, if he exists, is a dictatorial tyrant who encourages misogyny and genocide among his worshipers and doesn't deserve to be worshiped by rational people.

Not according to the uncertainty principle. Until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead, existing in simultaneous states. (And this doesn't even include the separate paths if one takes into account the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.)

That has nothing to do with whether the observer believes the cat is alive or dead. The cat is alive or dead, independent of the observer, or his belief.

I think you would not do well with postmodern deconstructionism either. That or conversations about consensual reality. For instance, subjective idealists hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the world view which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they might live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality.

Question: do you hold this view? If not, please leave it out of the discussion. I would much rather discuss what each of us personally believes than some abstract philosophical concept that has no real bearing on the discussion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

All right, I'll clarify. I think that people are good or evil independent of their religious beliefs.

Then why do you have a problem with individual people's beliefs?

That's what I was trying to get at in my response to Kinkoid's post. If she would do those good things anyway, what difference does it make if it's the church that houses them?

Exactly what I'm trying to understand.

You make it sound as if churches are the only ones who do charity work. Well, there are plenty of secular charities as well. If your church had to shut down for some reason, would you find another charity to support? Or would you just give it up because it wasn't run by your church?

Not sure what I might have said to make it sound that way. I can only speak for the church I personally belong to.

And I would not need to find other charities. I'd keep supporting the secular charities I already support. I would, however, find another church.

[Ghel]

Not sure what I might have said to make it sound that way. I can only speak for the church I personally belong to.

And I would not need to find other charities. I'd keep supporting the secular charities I already support.

You made an (apparently sarcastic) comment that if religion is a waste of time, your church should stop doing all the charity that it does. But the religion doesn't do the charity. The group of people who get together wanting to do good do the charity. That's all that I was trying to say.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

What I was responding to was Rap's implication (and this is my interpretation of what he said) that people who follow a religion are wasting their time that could be better spent serving humanity.

Part of the tenets of my religion is that we are under an obligation to help each other, both small scale and large. And since we strive to do just that as best we can, the suggestion that we need to "stop believing in God/following a certain philosophy so we can get on with the business of helping people" made no sense to me.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd like to know why people who spend a lot of effort explaining how they don't like other people telling them how to think then go on to spend a lot of effort telling other people how not to think.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

First - you can't prove that this old book that describes a divine force as being our creator and salvation is incorrect, so I'm going to live my life in a certain way, whether that be feeding the poor or killing infidels or any of the shades of grey between.

Second - you can't prove that this new book that describes alien robots from distant galaxies is incorrect, so I'll ... not do a thing differently.

And yet, there are now thousands of people who follow the ways of the Jedi (as a religion, no less). Or who adhere to the philosophy of the Goreans. Or who follow the moral code of the Lensmen.

I think everybody in this discussion is basically good. However, religion can be, and has been, used as a tool to coerce good people into doing evil things.

1) It's also been used as a tool to coerce bad people into doing good things.

2) I am not basically good. I am basically corrupt and extremely selfish. The only reason I do good things is because of my moral code. The only reason I have a moral code is because of the religion I was raised in, modified by the laws of today.

And frankly, I think most people are like me. But you can discard that, if you like...that just, like, my opinion, man.

Yes, we all know that fiction can have an effect on the real world. There is no doubt of that. However, it is still fiction. The people reading science fiction know (or ought to) that it is fiction. Turning science fiction into reality requires a process known as science. Using science, we can discover which parts of a story are true. Are you willing to subject your religion to science, so that we can discover which parts of it, if any, are true?

Sure. Go right ahead. I don't think you'll find anything that isn't mythological or allegorical in nature and thus not subject to scientific inquiry, but you're free to speculate. I recommend you to the Jesuits, who have been working their religion with science for a number of years now. I recall once hearing this interesting theory on how the Resurrection could have been done if certain atomic reactions had occurred, but you'd have to ask them about it.

We really shouldn't have to be having a discussion of the burden of proof again. We've done this to death.

Exactly. And since I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm getting tired of you sitting there and smugly saying "Provide proof!" When I present my religion as an Absolute Fact, as a scientific hypothesis, I'll ram proof down your throat.

I don't question your belief that all life is sacred or that people are basically good. I don't need you to provide proof of that. Why? It's a belief and you're free to believe whatever and all I need to do is say "I disagree." And that's flat.

The person who claims that a thing exists has the largest burden of proof in a discussion. If I were claiming that no gods exist, I would still have a smaller burden of proof than the person who claims that a god does exist.

Well, when I claim that the God of the Roman Catholics exists, I'll let you know. As it is, I don't claim that. I believe that God exists. I don't claim that he does. And yes, there is a difference; believing is my opinion, claiming is stating it as fact.

However, I am not claiming that no gods exist. I am claiming that (1) no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, and that (2) the Christian God, if he exists, is a dictatorial tyrant who encourages misogyny and genocide among his worshipers and doesn't deserve to be worshiped by rational people.

I agree with #1. No god of any religion has ever been demonstrated to exist in accordance with the standards of the scientific method.

However, I'll need to see your work for #2.

[QUOTE=Ghel;82299]That has nothing to do with whether the observer believes the cat is alive or dead. The cat is alive or dead, independent of the observer, or his belief.

That's not how observer effect works. Light is both a particle and a wave until observed, at which point observer effect causes it to collapse into one or the other. Same with the cat - the cat is both alive and dead, according to quantum mechanics, until the observer effect has collapsed the possibility.

Question: do you hold this view? If not, please leave it out of the discussion. I would much rather discuss what each of us personally believes than some abstract philosophical concept that has no real bearing on the discussion.

I'm not going to discuss what I personally believe with you any more than I would discuss it with Fred Phelps. If you can't handle abstract philosophical concepts that -I- say have bearing on the discussion, then get out of the kitchen.

I'd like to know why people who spend a lot of effort explaining how they don't like other people telling them how to think then go on to spend a lot of effort telling other people how not to think.

Because said unnamed people have a chip on their shoulder about the issue.

[Gravekeeper]

However, I'll need to see your work for #2.

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

[Hyena Dandy]

First - you can't prove that this old book that describes a divine force as being our creator and salvation is incorrect, so I'm going to live my life in a certain way, whether that be feeding the poor or killing infidels or any of the shades of grey between.

Second - you can't prove that this new book that describes alien robots from distant galaxies is incorrect, so I'll ... not do a thing differently.

We haven't claimed that you SHOULD live your life differently. We have claimed that its okay for US to live our lives following the codes of the book. We haven't said that the Bible is the ultimate proof of anything. We've claimed it can't be disproven, so what matters is that it brings us peace and joy.

If you wanted to follow the teachings of Gor, or the Jedi, or Haruhi Suzumiya, we wouldn't really CARE, we've said that its important that it brings you peace.

To answer the question of why The Bible instead of Star Wars, or Batman, or Cthulhu we've said "Because we like it better, you don't have to."






There are people out there who claim the Bible is the ultimate truth, the ultimate proof, and that you should follow it because its the Bible. That seems to be the position you're arguing against. But that is not the position any of us have taken.

And speaking at least for myself, if someone WERE to take the position that Christianity is right for YOU, I would be asking the same questions you are.

But the only claim I've made is that Christianity is right for ME.

[Rapscallion]

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

Well, there's an alternative view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tg46ScP8w

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Well, there's an alternative view.

Hah, yeah, they have a few good ones. Buddha's Apartment was always worth a laugh. To me anyway. >.>

[FArchivist]

Not that I'm taking up Ghel's position, but I feel the need to point out that that part is pretty easy. A quick run through the Old Testament would suffice to demostrate that that "God" in particular was honestly kind of a raging bipolar asshole. >.>

I don't think of it as raging asshole at all, just as "My House, My Rules." Assuming that any of that allegorical hoo-ha has any basis in fact and aren't parables with a moral lesson. From an allegorical perspective, it's no worse (and a lot better) than any other mythology.

[Ghel]

I could go through the gospels and pick out Jesus' words that show that even he was a misogynist, warmaking tyrant, who threatened people with infinite torture for finite crimes. But I've hit a stopping point.

At least three of you have stated that you don't care whether your beliefs coincide with reality. I only care about reality. Therefore, we have no basis for a discussion. Thank you, and good night.