News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Literal Genesis - Why?

Started by Persimmon Hamster, November 06, 2010, 02:14:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Persimmon Hamster

#15
Quote from: "McQ"Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html
I read through this.  If the only source they have is the listed/linked verses, I would say they are [strike:1p0zuuii]jumping[/strike:1p0zuuii] leaping to a great many conclusions.  I may need to investigate further whether there is any more to support those conclusions than they provide...what they do provide seems pretty weak.

I found the statement below amusing in an ironic sort of way.  The statement itself, as it is worded, I would consider to be a fair comparison.  But since I do not consider the human body to be somehow perfect or miraculous, I would derive a completely opposite conclusion from the comparison than was intended.
QuoteAnd yet the Bible's various parts are as harmoniously united as the diverse parts that make up the human body.
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

Persimmon Hamster

Quote from: "Being_Brave"The best answer I can think of is that the Bible wasn't written to be a science textbook; the point of the Bible for Christians is salvation, not biology or agriculture, etc... Obviously some processes were not mentioned (like meiosis, for example??), and I'd think he has to see that. If he can accept that he should be able to accept that just because something isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it's not true.
I think he does accept that there are things, things he would call true, not written in the Bible.  The problem is that he insists the things that are written in the Bible, are all true...literally.
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

McQ

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"
Quote from: "McQ"Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html
I read through this.  If the only source they have is the listed/linked verses, I would say they are [strike:4ys2e7v2]jumping[/strike:4ys2e7v2] leaping to a great many conclusions.  I may need to investigate further whether there is any more to support those conclusions than they provide...what they do provide seems pretty weak.

I found the statement below amusing in an ironic sort of way.  The statement itself, as it is worded, I would consider to be a fair comparison.  But since I do not consider the human body to be somehow perfect or miraculous, I would derive a completely opposite conclusion from the comparison than was intended.
QuoteAnd yet the Bible's various parts are as harmoniously united as the diverse parts that make up the human body.

I agree that what is available from the bible itself is pretty weak. That's one of the problems that people find once they do read it or actually study it, as I did. The more I read, and the more I studied it, the less tolerable it became for me. It was evident that it is a book not to be used as a literal translation of god's mind to humans. It just gets worse, as far as being a reliable source for anything other than just being folk tales, mythology, etc.

The bibles that I own all have concordances in them, which are great for finding all the passages that relate to one another. With a concordance, you could find every single verse in the old and new testaments that deal with the inerrancy of scripture. There may be online concordances as well that will help. I haven't had time to really go look up anything yet in them.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

tunghaichuan

Here's another way to look at it:

Genesis establishes the doctrine of Original Sin. So creation myths in Genesis must be taken literally. Without Original Sin, there is no need for Salvation, no need for Christ, no need for God and ultimately no need for religion. But there is a problem. Note I said myths. The story of Adam and Eve is the second creation myth. The first creation myth starts from Genesis 1:1-31 and continues through Genesis 2:3. Then, all of the sudden, everything is reset and God starts creating everything out of nothing again starting with Genesis 2:4. Because of this, I submit that Genesis cannot be take literally. There are two different accounts of the creation of the Earth and both are at odds to each other.

I've heard arguments that the first myth is the general story and the second myth is specific. But Genesis 2:5-7 refutes this. There is a clear reboot at Genesis 2:4. The college instructor who first showed me this stated that he believed that the Hebrews somehow absorbed two creation myths, and couldn't bear to strike either one from their Torah. So they kept both. Seems plausible to me.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17,

Persimmon Hamster

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"Here's another way to look at it:

Genesis establishes the doctrine of Original Sin. So creation myths in Genesis must be taken literally. Without Original Sin, there is no need for Salvation, no need for Christ, no need for God and ultimately no need for religion. But there is a problem. Note I said myths. The story of Adam and Eve is the second creation myth. The first creation myth starts from Genesis 1:1-31 and continues through Genesis 2:3. Then, all of the sudden, everything is reset and God starts creating everything out of nothing again starting with Genesis 2:4. Because of this, I submit that Genesis cannot be take literally. There are two different accounts of the creation of the Earth and both are at odds to each other.

I've heard arguments that the first myth is the general story and the second myth is specific. But Genesis 2:5-7 refutes this. There is a clear reboot at Genesis 2:4. The college instructor who first showed me this stated that he believed that the Hebrews somehow absorbed two creation myths, and couldn't bear to strike either one from their Torah. So they kept both. Seems plausible to me.
The same thing occurred to me as I read Genesis 1 & 2.  In fact I mentioned this to him and he made that very argument.  The way he stated it, roughly, to the best of my recollection, was that the way the Hebrews often wrote things was to give an overview and then "zoom in" on it.  Not having the book in front of us at the time, and having an imperfect memory, I was unable to provide a rebuttal for that though I did know that if anything the order of event appears to be in conflict.  I suspect, though, that he would argue there is no precise definition of chronology in the text (and that we are merely inferring it incorrectly from all of the "ands") and that nothing is in conflict.  For example, it would seem there is conflict in the fact that in the first story it sounds like animals are created first, then man, and in the other it sounds like the reverse.  But notice that in the first story, they are indeed both created on the same day, so, if the argument can be made that there is no reason to assume the events in either story are to be taken chronologically from verse to verse, the conflict disappears.  I don't know if that argument can be made convincingly, though.

I also went on to say the whole "zooming in" explanation doesn't seem to help much in the flood story, because contradictions are inserted almost directly after one another in parallel there.  :p  He remained more or less silent on that and I have not pursued it further.
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

tunghaichuan

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"The same thing occurred to me as I read Genesis 1 & 2.  In fact I mentioned this to him and he made that very argument.  The way he stated it, roughly, to the best of my recollection, was that the way the Hebrews often wrote things was to give an overview and then "zoom in" on it.  Not having the book in front of us at the time, and having an imperfect memory, I was unable to provide a rebuttal for that though I did know that if anything the order of event appears to be in conflict.  I suspect, though, that he would argue there is no precise definition of chronology in the text (and that we are merely inferring it incorrectly from all of the "ands") and that nothing is in conflict.  For example, it would seem there is conflict in the fact that in the first story it sounds like animals are created first, then man, and in the other it sounds like the reverse.  But notice that in the first story, they are indeed both created on the same day, so, if the argument can be made that there is no reason to assume the events in either story are to be taken chronologically from verse to verse, the conflict disappears.  I don't know if that argument can be made convincingly, though.

I also went on to say the whole "zooming in" explanation doesn't seem to help much in the flood story, because contradictions are inserted almost directly after one another in parallel there.  :p  He remained more or less silent on that and I have not pursued it further.

I have heard the "zooming in" argument, but have not investigated it. In the case of the two creation myths of Genesis, it sounds like apologist bullshit to me given the inaccuracies.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17,

Sophus

Taken literally the world would make more sense if you could just convince yourself science is bunch of bull pucky. After all why would an all knowing God get His own story wrong?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

tunghaichuan

Another thought: reading Genesis literally also allowed the Church to victimize women as a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story makes Eve the cause of Original Sin. This view introduced misogyny int Christianity and allowed the Church to relegate women as inferior. Elaine Pagels wrote an excellent book on this called Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent- ... 527&sr=1-1

@Persimmon Hamster: you might want to look this over and relate to your friend:

http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html

Several of the gnostic gospels from the Nag Hammadi library turn the Adam and Eve story upside down. Yahweh is the villain (who is called Samael which means "god of the blind" in the Hypostasis of the Archons) as he is an imperfect creator, creates an imperfect world, creates Adam and Eve (who have the divine spark, but do not know this) and then traps them in an illusion, which he conceals from them. The serpent is the hero as he imparts knowledge upon Eve. One gnostic gospel states that Eve was sent by Sophia (greek for "wisdom", and the mother of Yahweh/Samael) to raise up Adam from his ignorance.

There is no evidence that gnostics believed these stories to be literal. In fact, there is evidence that the gnostics considered their gospels/writings to be transformative myth and not a literal account of the creation of the world.  

So for the Orthodox Church, a literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 accomplishes two things: it establishes Original Sin and allows women to be demoted to inferior status.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17,

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"First, you assume they would make the claim that "free will" or "omnipotence" exist within their theology in the same absolute terms with which you might define them.  They can easily just play around with definitions of "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent" and "free will", to wiggle out of contradictions.

Indeed.  Wordplay is endemic in this territory.

QuoteJust yesterday I was reading this, which I have not yet had time to fully digest/analyze for myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga% ... ll_defense
Apparently this logical defense "has received wide acceptance among contemporary philosophers".

The crucial passage:

Quote from: "Plantiga""It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

The second possibility I can accept.  The first is obviously contradictory, unless one relies on the wordplay referred to above.  I abjure such wordplay.  A limit on God's power strips him of Omnipotence.  Now, if we wish to redefine the god-concept, that's cool.  Very few Christians are willing to do this.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That he does not make people perfect does not show that he cannot.  That imperfection exists in the world does not show that the creator of said world is imperfect.  Of course, this, too, depends on your definition of perfection.  What is your definition?  I suppose I should have asked this from the beginning.

In defining an agent as "perfect", one is judging by his product.  After all, what other criterion is there?  Your caution, that god may be underachieving, is noted; however, logically speaking, it excludes omnibenevolence to permit evil as a result of not working to perfection.

QuoteNote that I am not supporting these arguments, merely trying to explore all the directions my debates with this friend might take.  This all seems much less straightforward to debate using pure philosophy & logic than it might appear on the surface.

I hear you.  I like a vigorous back&forth, it gives my brainmuscle a workout too.

And yes, I can't stand philosophy, because it is so often obscurantist.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Persimmon Hamster

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The second possibility I can accept.  The first is obviously contradictory, unless one relies on the wordplay referred to above.  I abjure such wordplay.  A limit on God's power strips him of Omnipotence.  Now, if we wish to redefine the god-concept, that's cool.  Very few Christians are willing to do this.

In defining an agent as "perfect", one is judging by his product.  After all, what other criterion is there?  Your caution, that god may be underachieving, is noted; however, logically speaking, it excludes omnibenevolence to permit evil as a result of not working to perfection.
I still have not invested any serious effort in unraveling Plantinga's alleged logical proof that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can be upheld in the face of the existence of our world...and I am starting to doubt I will due to lack of desire and time...

But as far as I have been able to comprehend the argument so far, I would summarize it in my own words as follows.  Basically, if there is some larger purpose that God needs to fulfill (beyond our comprehension), and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it, then does that necessarily render him either non-omnibenevolent and non-omnipotent?  Could he be benevolent in that, for example, once those of us "suffering" in this world are "redeemed" in death, and once he makes good on his alleged promise that we will be "rewarded" in a manner outside of "time" for our enduring this world, and we then understand the need for all of this...we will see there was no ultimate malice intended or in store?  To put this more metaphorically, and thus more imprecisely, that we will say "well, God, nobody can blame you, the omelet turned out perfect though you had to break some eggs along the way"...  And could he still be omnipotent in that, ultimately, his necessary purpose outside of human perception of time and scope of comprehension, will be fulfilled?  Similarly to how, sure, to an ant, it is within my power as a human being to move a "mountain" (which would surely befuddle an ant, had it a degree of consciousness) but the process involved in doing so would not be instantaneous (by neither my perception of time, or the ant's).

But yes, it's all wordplay.  If you define omnipotence in the pure sense of the term you would state that I didn't need a process to move that mountain, I could have done it instantaneously with a wink of my eye or even by simply willing it.  But also, if you would define omnipotence in the pure sense of the term, you would find it a logical paradox.  So when a Christian says their God possesses it, should we presume they are simply unaware of the logical paradox or that they have already accepted within themselves a definition that is slightly nuanced?  Is there in fact any clear interpretation to be gleaned from the Bible that would clearly, distinctly, without question be referring to that simple, "pure" definition of omnipotence?
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I still have not invested any serious effort in unraveling Plantinga's alleged logical proof that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can be upheld in the face of the existence of our world...and I am starting to doubt I will due to lack of desire and time...

I've been debating this exact topic on the Challenge for Christians thread, if that interests you.  Here's a link to where my arguments begin: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6179#p90800

Quote- and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it -

I would argue that those words, or other words to the same effect, can never be applied to an omnipotent and omniscient entity.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Thumpalumpacus

Yes, those words jumped out at me as a stark limitation on his power.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Persimmon Hamster

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
Quote- and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it -

I would argue that those words, or other words to the same effect, can never be applied to an omnipotent and omniscient entity.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yes, those words jumped out at me as a stark limitation on his power.
You both know that.  I know that.

The point is, you can try explaining that to a Christian until you are blue in the face.  What will happen is, he will (usually) immediately see the logical paradox of absolute omnipotence, but that won't convince him his God is impossible.  He will simply adjust his definition of God (or, already has) to account for it (or feed the old line about how you mustn't test God).  He may eventually be able to semi-satisfactorily (for purposes of argument) characterize some being with more power than us, more knowledge than us, and less capacity for or desire to commit "evil" than us that he sees as being his creator, his savior, his everything, worthy of praise and worship.  So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Personally, once I saw the logical fallacy for myself, I concluded whatever "God" could be it would just be another consciousness, essentially no different from myself in its capacity for error, learning, reason, subjective purpose, etc.  And I thought to myself, "well, then, F**** him".

Of course, that is all ignoring other logical conundrums, such as defining "good", "evil", and the difference between the two...explaining why animals must also "suffer"...  Two coupled issues that both of you have attempted to get Achronos to tackle in other threads.  I think he will sidestep it entirely, but hopefully I am wrong.

On that note, I am starting to wonder if he is really a single person, or if "he" is some front for multiple theists having a go at smacking down atheists.  His communication style, knowledge of colloquialisms, etc, seems a little too inconsistent between posts.  Am I the only one getting that feeling?
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Having proven to your own satisfaction that the person you're debating with (or explaining to) operates outside of reason, I think you would very sensibly disengage, since debating and explaining assume reason as a pre-requisite.  An alternative would be to continue interacting but in a subtly different manner, your goal having changed to one of anthropological study, the subject of inquiry being the category of human that operates outside of reason.

QuotePersonally, once I saw the logical fallacy for myself, I concluded whatever "God" could be it would just be another consciousness, essentially no different from myself in its capacity for error, learning, reason, subjective purpose, etc.  And I thought to myself, "well, then, F**** him".

One of my proto-atheist opinions was, "If God exists, he either isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscient, or isn't all-loving."  At that point in my intellectual progress, I was OK with a God who lacked one, two, or all three of those absolutist attributes.  I found all-love to be the most dispensible.  A God who enjoyed watching creatures scrape and claw was entirely plausible to me at that time.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"The point is, you can try explaining that to a Christian until you are blue in the face.  What will happen is, he will (usually) immediately see the logical paradox of absolute omnipotence, but that won't convince him his God is impossible.  He will simply adjust his definition of God (or, already has) to account for it (or feed the old line about how you mustn't test God).  He may eventually be able to semi-satisfactorily (for purposes of argument) characterize some being with more power than us, more knowledge than us, and less capacity for or desire to commit "evil" than us that he sees as being his creator, his savior, his everything, worthy of praise and worship.  So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Once I've ascertained that my interlocutor has wooden ears, I move on, only occasionally responding to his posts, and then only for the sake of lurkers.  Then, too, I've seen the dripping of small bits of logic completely erode a person's faith over the course of a couple of years online.  "What next?" therefore relies on your conversant.

QuoteOn that note, I am starting to wonder if he is really a single person, or if "he" is some front for multiple theists having a go at smacking down atheists.  His communication style, knowledge of colloquialisms, etc, seems a little too inconsistent between posts.  Am I the only one getting that feeling?

Didn't strike me as such, but the more the merrier, I s'pose.
Illegitimi non carborundum.