|
theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/31/2008 8:55:11 PM)
|
quote:
(cognitivemagic)(post#231) What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
(abraxas)(post #245)There are all sorts of claims about all sorts of things, from God to UFOs to ghosts. No one believes all of them. Often there are conflicting claims which cannot both be true, this is observable fact. So unless a person is willing to accept any and every claim, they would probably concede that skepticism is not only healthy but necessary.
Now skepticism of skepticism, I think that would be a healthy part of skepticism, but more so in some cases than others -- however the above fact gives a lot more weight to the principle of skepticism than there is for the principle of skepticism of skepticism. Take the psychic hotline, for example. Is it a good idea to be skeptical of that kind of claim? Is it equally important, or less so, to be skeptical of one's skepticism regarding the psychic hotline?
Another claim: the repair shop calls and tells me my vacuum cleaner is ready to pick up. Should I be skeptical of their claim? In this case I would say a "dogmatic skepticism" could use a healthy dose of skepticism.
(theo_book)(post#246) Hmmm?? I'm Skeptical!
(wayward1) (Post #247) Maybe I'm reading too much into that comment, theo, but something has to give here with the claims of how nothing can be proven and skepticism is only valid if you're skeptical of skepticism. I'm going to explain it in detail and unless you or cognitivemagic can reply with a reason I should change my mind, I'll expect to not see any more of this.
(theo) A "Skeptic," simply put, is one who asks questions. Through misuse however, it has come to mean or imply "one who doubts everything." That is not the case. And the phrase "skepticism of skeptism" has no meaning other than to say "I question your right to question." It is a phony rationalization, and you have been sucked in.
quote:
(wayward1) You are claiming that nothing can be proven and that evidence is nothing without testimony, and I want to concede right here and now that you are absolutely correct. Nothing can be proven.
First and foremost a proof is little more than a logically deduced argument, not an empirical one.
(theo) That is not the basis of my argument. Proof has not a lot to do with logic, nor with deduceing empirically. It has to do with agreement. It is that simple.
I examine a "thingy;" analyze it; consider it; agonize over it for "meaning" or "significance" or any number of responses. I reach a conclusion based upon my experience; my education; my biases; my level of comprehension; my command of language; my ability to imagine; my understanding of basic scientific principles.
YOU examine a "thingy;" analyze it; consider it; agonize over it for "meaning" or "significance" or any number of responses. YOU reach a conclusion based upon YOUR experience; YOUR education; YOUR biases; YOUR level of comprehension; YOUR command of language; YOUR ability to imagine; YOUR understanding of basic scientific principles.
THEY examine a "thingy;" analyze it; consider it; agonize over it for "meaning" or "significance" or any number of responses. THEY reach a conclusion based upon THEIR experience; THEIR education; THEIR biases; THEIR level of comprehension; THEIR command of language; THEIR ability to imagine; THEIR understanding of basic scientific principles.
Then we all get together and compare conclusions based on the results of our examination and analysis. If there is one of me, one of you, and sixty thousand of them, the result will be the same. All we need to do is develope a majority concensus of opinion as to the validity of a common conclusion. WHICHEVER conclusion has the most agreement is the winner, and is pronounced "TRUE." THAT is the basis of all truth among men.
quote:
(wayward1) That is, to be a "proof" arguments must demonstrate that their proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, without a single exception. An unproven proposition believed or strongly suspected to be true is known as a conjecture. And outside of mathematics and logic, everything is a conjecture.
(theo) Some disciplines of mathematics, perhaps, but not all. And most certainly logic should be consistant, but than again, most people consider logic to mean "If I understand it, it must be logical." Take that and divide it among sixty thousand and two, and what do you get? Still, a majority concensus.
quote:
(wayward1) Stephen Jay Gould wrote that, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world." He recognized, and it is an axiom of science, that there can be no such proofs in the empirical world. This is not because nothing is true, but because there is no mechanism for establishing any proposition as true "without a single exception." To empirically establish such a quality, we would have to actually observe every single instance of the event in question. How wonderful that would be were we able to do such a thing, but sadly... we cannot.
(theo) If I understand what you said, this would be why Evolution is a theory and not a fact; even though many on these boards teach and preach it as the "fact of evolution."
quote:
(wayward1) Therefore, in an empirical world where proof is forever unavailable to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in any conjecture. And we are fortunate to have such tools: evidence and reason. These tools allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence. But that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional.
(theo) Reason of course is subject to my experience; my education; my biases; my level of comprehension; my command of language; my ability to imagine; my understanding of basic scientific principles.
And much that is "evidence" is subject to our analysis and evaluation which is based upon my experience; my education; my biases; my level of comprehension; my command of language; my ability to imagine; my understanding of basic scientific principles.
quote:
(wayward1) Example: "The sun rises in the east."
We have great confidence in the statement as a provisional truth. We have observed innumerable such events, and the sun has never disappointed us so far. Each one of these observations is additional evidence that the sun rises in the east, and reason allows us to inductively gain great confidence that tomorrow it will do the same thing.
But the sun does not actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. It is the earth's rotation towards what we call the "east" that creates the illusion of the rising sun. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is not true at all.
(theo) I think that is understood to be "accomodative language."
quote:
(wayward1) History is filled with similar examples of things that were considered true (and mistakenly considered "proven") that ultimately turned out to be false.
(theo) "The earth is flat" is one such example. Of course it was the brainchild of Portugese traders who wanted to keep their trade routes secret from the English and Spanish. They started telling it in every port worldwide into which their ships were docked, and voila, "flat earth society."
quote:
(wayward1) But wait... that's not all.
Our current conjecture that the earth rotates towards the east is much better supported by both evidence and reason than the older conjecture that the sun rises in the east. Because of this we have great confidence that science is doing the best it can, which is progressively, painstakingly and incrementally approaching truth. Certainly in this example the step was a great one in that direction. But does that make our current understanding any more a "proof" than the older one?
quote:
(wayward1) The earth rotates towards the east, today. It was not always so. It will not always be so. Let's just use the old colloquial "the sun rises in the east" for ease of understanding, but only as an idiom for the rest of this discussion.
We expect the sun to "rise in the east" tomorrow, just as it always has. But there will come a day when that is not true. It is almost certainly absurd to imagine the transition will happen in a single night, and the probability of that is vanishingly small. Though it is not zero.
We can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives operationally understanding that they are true. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise, and by the way we all operate, it is apparent that we all get this, whether we've considered it or not. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them. In fact few things could be more absurd than doing so.
But that does not change the fundamental reality that you and the cognitive magician are technically correct to state that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved.
When you point out that there is no "proof" of anything you behave as though this gives you permission to literally believe anything you want about the world. In so doing you are mutilating our understanding that nothing can be proven. If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, then the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools. And all competing ideas can be discriminated only by their evidence and reason.
When someone says (for example) "science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of god," the only reasonable responses are first, "Duh," and second "so what?"
(theo) I think science CAN prove the existence of God, from evidence and reason. The fact that they don't is from choice and free will. It is the result of a decision. The creation, the flood, the crucifixion of Christ, is is claimed are all "accepted by faith by the Christian community."
That is a singular fallacy of reasoning with a total disregard for evidence. All of those events have sufficient evidence to sustain analysis and evaluation resulting in a majority concensus of "truth."
The ONLY thing Christians are to accept by faith, is the promise of God, that we also will be in the resurrection. And this "faith" is sustained by two things; the FACT of the resurrection of Christ, with eye-witness testimony sufficient to convince hundreds of thousands in the ancient world; and the promise of God, based upon the experiences of a people who walked accross a wilderness world for forty years, eating manna on a daily basis; witnessing, seeing, and tasting a miracle. And for forty years they did this. That does not have to be proved any more than the seven wonders of the ancient world have to be "seen and touched and felt" by each occuring generation before we can consider it as fact. It has already been proved by generations. It does not have to be proved again. The "Fact" may be accepted, or it may be rejected, but it does to have to be reproved.
quote:
(wayward1) The arguments offered on either side never depended on proof in the first place. They depended on evidence and reason. And if the evidence and reason favors one conjecture over the other, then proclaiming that "you can't prove it" is exposed as a rather decisive abandonment of the intellectual field, and I warned you about how you should expect to not be taken seriously.
Here, for once and for always allow me to concede that science cannot prove anything. But it can AND DOES do a fabulous job of discriminating between good ideas (those with reason and evidence in their favor) and bad ideas (those without). And in this way, science can demonstrate that certain specific sectarian beliefs do not deserve the intellectual allegiance of any thinking person.
Your assertions that evidence is nothing without testimony are a drastically unfortunate waste of time.
(theo) And your expenditure of testimony is a testimony to the fact of its importance in communicating the evidence in favour of that fact to us.)
Do you know why the "facts" of scripture are now in such disfavour in the scientific world?
In 1753 a French Physician named Astruc analyzed the book of Genesis by dividing its account according to whether God was identified as "Elohim" or "Jehovah." Astruc argued for the Mosaic authorship, though he denied the "source" material within its pages.
In 1787, and 1803, Eichhorn, who has been called "The Father of Higher Criticism," agreed with Astruc's analysis and finding that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Neither of them carried the analysis beyond the beginning chapters of Exodus.
In 1805, De Wette challenged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah. this stirred a calamitous controversy, causing many writers to come forward in defense of the traditional view.
By 1823, Eichhorn no longer insisted upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
In 1823, Bleek extended the analysis to Joshua, and confirmed the critics in their opinion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as they now considered it to extend beyond the lifetime of Moses, so how could he be its author? Which in turn, called into question much of the source material attributed to him. This is circular reasoning at its worst. "The Pentateuch couldn't have been written by Moses, because his sources have been determined, by our theory, to post date him, therefore could not have been his work;" so goes the argument of Higher Criticism.
The original theory, as proposed by Astruc and Eichhorn, was a "two-document" hypothesis, depending upon two documents as source material for the Mosaic documents. Publication of their "theory" opened the floodgates for many other "higher criticism" theories, which are in reality, nothing but an attack upon the accepted scriptures, as from God; with its built-in "authority," and all that implies.
It (the "two-document theory") was based upon a very silly fraud. They took apart the Massoretic text, and assigned every verse that calls God Jehovah to one scribe, while those verses calling God Eloheem, were assigned to another, because they considered the different name, to be a different "style." Then of course, they are inconsistant, because they did not follow their own silly logic, by further breaking it down into "El," "Eloah," "Adown," "Adonay," "El Shaddai," and etc., but did in fact break "Eloheem" down into two sources, calling them old Elohist, and young Elohist. They further came up with Jehovist, and Deuteronomist.
As for the question of "style;" Do you know how many Hebrew expressions may be translated "destroy," in one form or another? Or "destruction?" In Gen 18-19, four different Hebrew verbs are utilized in expressing this concept; one is used four times, another nine times, another three times, and one is used once. The entire reference, (except 19:29) is assigned to "J" as its author, because of "style." Yet two of these words appear in 19:29, which "Higher criticism" appropriates for "P" because of "style."
What is the significance of this? It simply shows that the "higher criticism" theorists are inconsistant, because they allow "J" to use a variety of words, which they use to allocate "style," in this instance; yet deny him the same variety, "because of style," with reference to other words.
Look for a parallel example in today's publication of some alleged "bible code" which purports to "break the code of scripture" and telling all the secrets of the ages. The suggestion that by removing all punctuation, and spaces, thus making one long word out of the bible; then starting at the beginning and spelling out words by the succession in which the letters appear, "discovers" God's real message, fails to address the issue of the fact that the scriptures were not written in English, nor a particular translation, but in Hebrew and Greek. It is another fraud, but there are many who believe they can "crack the code" because some fool published an untested theory.
They finally arranged the "documentary hypothesis" so that;
"J" references the Jehovist
"E" references the second Elohist
"D" references the Deuteronomist
"P" references the first Elohist.
The Testimony of "Tradition" contradicts the "theory" of Higher Criticism.
Higher Critics do not deny the antiquity and universal acceptance of the tradition that the Pentateuch is "of Moses." they rather affirm that their own untested view is in fact a "modern discovery." The Apocrapha; Josephus; Philo; the Talmud; Mileto, Bishop of Sardis (cir,175 a.d.); All the Church Fathers lists of canonical scriptures; The Common tradition to them all, is that it represents the teachings of the bible itself.
The universal understanding, among Jews and Christians, was that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Josephus states this to be the case, for Judaism; and in Luther's translation of the bible, "a book of Moses" titles each of the books of the Pentateuch. The 1611 KJV echos the sentiment. A very important question relating thereunto, is, how true is the basis for this tradition which dates from antiquity?
1. The basis for the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is manifold.
a. The claims that the Pentateuch makes for itself.
The quotation from Josephus, that the Pentateuch "contains Moses' laws," is borne out by the document itself. It is clearly declared that the decalogue, given at Sinai, were made by Moses; and that the ten "words" were uttered in his presence [Exo 20:19ff]; He was told later to write them; [34:27].
With reference to the laws of Exod 21-23, we are specifically told that "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah" [24:4]; and the document which contains them is clearly understood to be the "book of the covenant."[vs.7]
Tabarnacle construction and directions appertaining thereunto are given in Exo 25-31, in the form of personal communications to Moses; and the actual construction account is replete with references to "as Jehovah commanded Moses."
In the Leviticus account, the words "Jehovah spake (said, called0 unto Moses" (or less frequently, "unto Moses and Aaron"), occur 35 times, 19 of which are at chapter beginnings. Lev 26:46 and 27:34 connect the giving of these priestly laws, with specificity, to Sinai.
Numbers follows much the same pattern; nearly half the chapters beginning the same way; the last verse being in the encampment at Moab.
Deuteronomy rehashes what has already been said, with a view to preparing the people for the new circumstances under which these laws will prevail. Deu 31:9,24 says Moses wrote the law in a book; verse 26 tells us the Levites were commanded by Moses, to put this book inside the Ark of the covenant.
The Historicity of the events recorded, has the same broad application as that of the legal aspect. Moses was told to write of God's judgment upon Amelek, "in a book" [Ex 17:14]. It is also stated that Moses wrote wrote the journal of the travels, recorded in Numbers 33. We are told that Moses gave to Israel, the song and benediction recorded in Deu 32-33.
The fact of these chapters being attributed to Moses, reminds us of Josephus' reference, "and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death." They show that Moses was interested in the history of his people [Deut. 32:7-8]; and the author of Deut 33 might well have recorded Gen 49. While it is true, the book of Genesis nowhere records moses as its author, however, the "and" with which Exodus begins, continues an intelligible sequel to the Genesis account as no other book does.
b. Testimony of the Old Testament
References to Moses are as numerous in Joshua as in all the other books of the Old Testament in total. They purport to show that Joshua derives his authority from Moses. Appeal is constantly made to "as Moses commanded." These references serve to define Joshua's role after the death of Moses; Joshua is often spoken of, as though he were Moses' successor. This is misleading. [Deu 18:15,18][Acts 3:20-24] Jesus Christ was Moses' successor.
Fourteen other books reference Moses by name. More frequently, they reference "the Law."
c. Testimony of the new Testament
Jesus did not dispute the Old Testament Canon as accepted by the Jews. His challenge was always to their misinterpretation of it, and failure to obey its mandates. [Lk 20:37; John 7:19]] This is made abundantly clear in Luke 24:27,44, showing that Jesus recognized the divisions of the Old Testament, as later defined by Josephus, already in existance; and that the "writings" of Moses [John 5:47; Luke 16:29,31] which he referenced, were the Pentateuch. He quoted the decalogue [Exo 20:12; Deu 5:16] with the words "Moses said," [Mark 7:10]; adding quotations from [Exod 21:17] and [Lev 20:9]
When the Pharisees contested with him about divorce, [Mat 19:3] he appealed first to [Gen 2:24], When the appeal referenced "Moses command" [Deu 24:1-4], he showed that Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of heart.
When the question concerning a brother's duty to a deceased brother's widow was placed in ridicule by the Saducees, who wanted to make resurrection appear as a fable, Jesus appealed to the utterance at the burning bush; [Exo 3:6, which in [Mark 12:26] are referenced as "the book of Moses," and in [Mat
23:31 ascribed directly to "God."
Paul the apostle subscribed to the same view. [Acts 28:23][Rom 10:19][1 Cor 9:9][2 Cor 3:15] indicating clearly that the New Testament viewpoint was that "Moses" and "the law" are equivalent expressions.
2. Consequence of rejection of the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, is to leave nothing beyond the "modern discovery," for reference.
a. The first such consequence is rejection of all positive external evidence, both Biblical, and extra-biblical, as to authorship of the Pentateuch. This is not done on the strength of authority of older and better evidence, as no such evidence has ever been produced, much less offered.
It is done only on the basis of "theory," the correctness of which, has never been proved, nor honestly examined. It is simply "stated," then treated as though much scholarship had gone into the "discovery" thereof. THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
b. The second consequence of rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is to admit that the fundamental account is erroneous.
c. The third consequence of rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is the adoption of a low view of the authority and credibility of the bible in any capacity whatever.
3. The Methodology employed by the higher critics is responsible for these radical consequences.
a. A variation in diction, style, point of view, subject matter, are all seized upon as evidence for differing authorship. Different authorships become contradictions. Contradictions become lies.
b. The uniqueness of Israel's communication with God is rejected, and becomes a uniqueness of Israel itself, and its speccial genius for religion.
c. Supernatural redemptive efforts become naturalistic evolutionary effort.
"Miracles" become tales of "exageration," or presented as "unscientific." Well, miralces are not "unscientific." They are "NON-scientific."
Attacks upon the "truth of scripture" are just one of a long list of consequences, by those who do not wish to study the problem for themselves, depending upon traditions going back thousands of years, into antiquity; but would rather depend upon traditions dating back to 1753; which "tradition" is based upon an untested, unproved theory.
Attack upon the veracity of many of the verses within context has begun, stating that Mark 16, verse 9 through the end of the chapter, are redactive, for example, is one of many destructive approaches taken by those who would do away with the doctrines of hell and Eternal Damnation.
Two footnotes, found in the NIV serve to illustrate the point quite well;
The first is found with reference to Mark 16:9-20. It states, in a parenthesis, (The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20). The second is found at John 1:18. It states- Some manuscripts- "but the only (or only begotten) son."
The only thing wrong with these statements is, they are pure fabrications, with no truth whatsoever. The truth of the matter is, there are two manuscripts in which John 1:18 has "theos" instead of "huis." They are the Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. Coincidentally, these two manuscripts are the only two which omit the Mark passages in question.
The ancient manuscripts fall into the following classifications: 114 codices on parchment, wherein the capitals and characters run together; twelve hundred cursives containing the gospels; five hundred manuscripts containing all other parts of the New Testament: 500 manuscripts and 2000 copies- all but two of which contain the Mark references, and "huis" instead of "theos" in John 1:18. Yet, the revisors almost always will footnote with "some manuscripts include" when in fact, two do not.
The fact that the end of John (21:25) is missing from these same manuscripts; as also some text from the Hebrews manuscript (which ends at 9:14); John 7:53 through John 8:11; as well as others of the New Testament. yet, Mark 16:9-20 is the only one which is "authenticated" as "the most reliable and other early ancient manuscripts" being the cause of their ommission.
The Sinaitic leaves were discovered by Tischendorf in a wastebasket of a monastery at Mt. Sinai. This is not a very professional method of storing "ancient authentic manuscripts."
A Major breakdown of all that is held dear because of appeal to the older traditions, as the "modern studies" make their "new" and atrocious claims.
Sin is no longer sin. Hell disappears from doctrine, and eternal damnation becomes temporary punishment. All appeals to scripture fall on deaf ears, of those who fail to understand the value of history, to doctrine.
In the nineteenth century, three major editions of "Greek" have been produced; 1869-1872 by Tischendorf; 1881 by Westcott and Hort; 1894-1900 by Bernhard Weiss. Where two of these editions agree, it is presented by Nestle, as the most authentic Greek text available today.
In the twentieth century, (1958) a revised edition of Eberhard Nestle's text was provided by G.D.Kilpatrick, Erwin Nestle, and several other scholars in London England.
One major example of the result, is John 1:18: "monogonees theos ho hon..." as compared with "monogonees huis ho hon..." of the earlier, 1550 Greek text of Stephens, compared with Elzivor - 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tichendorf, Tregellas, Alford, and Wordsworth. All of the earlier Greek texts read "huis" instead of "theos" with two exceptions.
Attack upon the veracity of many of the verses within context has begun, stating that Mark 16, verse 9 through the end of the chapter, are redactive, for example, is one of many destructive approaches taken by those who would do away with the doctrines of hell and Eternal Damnation.
"There is some good in all the translations" - So say the promoters of the perversions of scripture. Poison in a pot of soup in the kitchen, would not evoke praise in the dining room. So say I, Theo Book.
Texts themselves introduce a new element into the fray, as evidenced by the variations between the Byzantine (KJV) and the Alexandrian (RV -1881 & ASV-1901) text. The RSV - 1946 reflects the views of contemporary scholars, and is an eclectic text.
Look for instance, at the reconstruction of Acts 15:24.
Greek text of Stephens, 1550 - The common text in England. (KJV)
Epeidee eekousamen oti tines ez eemwn ezelthontes etarazan umas logois
anaskeuazontes tas psuxas umwn
lagontes peritemnesthai kai teerein ton nomon
ois ou diesteilametha.
Greek text of Nestle; 21st ed.; (NIV)
Epeidee eekousamen oti tines ez eemwn etarazan umas logois
anaskeuazontes tas psuxas umwn
ois ou diesteilametha.
The result of such perversion? Peter and the eleven now become preachers of circumcision, and keeping the law, because the "content" of the denial of the apostles and elders, with the whole church, is missing. This radically changes the fact that Peter himself denied that the gentiles were to keep circumcision and the law. Claim is now made that Peter and the eleven had the specific goal to Judaize the gentile converts.
This is the beginning of why we hold the KJV so dear. It has problems, but we begin to recognize them from familiarity, as we have dealt with them, and do not have to "relearn" the errors of translation.
|
|
|
|