The Holy Books and Scientific

[Question]

If you believe that god created the universe then you must admit that god had to have a ton of scientific knowledge. He had to know about astronomy, physics, biology, etc etc.

If you have ever had a conversation with anyone who is highly scientific or an engineer or a geek you will hear a different conversation then if you were talking to a high school buddy. They all talk with a certain precision in their field and even when they are just having a casual conversation there is a certain precision to the words that they chose.

So here are my questions

When one reads the holy books, the translated words are very ambiguous and open to wide and many interpretations. This in my opinion is why there are many religions or sects within a religion. A scientist or engineer does not speak this way, so why aren’t the books written with a higher level of precision that would not be open to wide interpretations?

Why didn’t god just put in the books E=MC2, some scientific type would have wondered about that and maybe figured it out centuries before Einstein?

Why aren’t there any formulas in the holy books?

If you were running an experiment to see if you could get everyone on a certain planet to believe in just one god and you observed the mess we have now wouldn’t you show up and adjust some of the parameters that you started with and rerun it?

If you wanted everyone on a planet to follow the same rules wouldn’t you make the same copy for each population center?

Wouldn’t you carve them on the biggest stone you could find so it wouldn’t get lost or destroyed in a flood?

If an all knowing god was the source for the holy books and he knew that English would be the quasi world language wouldn’t he have written at least a portion in English?

:wave:

[elevator]

There are many posts in this forum dedicated to describing/arguing why our holy literature largely must have been written by mere mortals influenced more by the historical context in which they lived than by the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent deity of any religious dogma.

There are many puzzling elements about our holy literature in addition to its lack of accurate scientific data and the ambiguity of its translations and interpretations. For example; take the shear number of existing and extinct conflicting dogmas and religious doctrines; most with different historic and scientific claims, most with different views on the process of creation, morality, philosophy of the afterlife and the existence of the supernatural.

Another example; if one truly believes that the biblical God is the moral superhero he is sometimes portrayed as; it is quite odd that the 10 commandments and Levitical law is the best he could come up with. It makes more sense if one views these "moral elements" in an historical context and as the work of ancient humans, rather than the work of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

[NZSkep]

There are many posts in this forum dedicated to describing/arguing why our holy literature largely must have been written by mere mortals influenced more by the historical context in which they lived than by the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent deity of any religious dogma.

There are many puzzling elements about our holy literature in addition to its lack of accurate scientific data and the ambiguity of its translations and interpretations. For example; take the shear number of existing and extinct conflicting dogmas and religious doctrines; most with different historic and scientific claims, most with different views on the process of creation, morality, philosophy of the afterlife and the existence of the supernatural.

Another example; if one truly believes that the biblical God is the moral superhero he is sometimes portrayed as; it is quite odd that the 10 commandments and Levitical law is the best he could come up with. It makes more sense if one views these "moral elements" in an historical context and as the work of ancient humans, rather than the work of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

good first post elevator.
Welcome.

Have you been lurking for a while?

[Question]

There are many posts in this forum dedicated to describing/arguing why our holy literature largely must have been written by mere mortals influenced more by the historical context in which they lived than by the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent deity of any religious dogma.

There are many puzzling elements about our holy literature in addition to its lack of accurate scientific data and the ambiguity of its translations and interpretations. For example; take the shear number of existing and extinct conflicting dogmas and religious doctrines; most with different historic and scientific claims, most with different views on the process of creation, morality, philosophy of the afterlife and the existence of the supernatural.

Another example; if one truly believes that the biblical God is the moral superhero he is sometimes portrayed as; it is quite odd that the 10 commandments and Levitical law is the best he could come up with. It makes more sense if one views these "moral elements" in an historical context and as the work of ancient humans, rather than the work of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

Yes the mere mortal authors comes thru load and clear.

Welcome also

[elevator]

Thank you both for your welcome. Yes, I have been reading this forum for quite some time, but I just recently registered to be able to post. I guess a brief introduction is in order: if I were to label myself; it would be as an agnostic with regards to knowledge of the divine and atheist in regards to belief in the divine - that is I think it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, but I also believe that there are no good reasons to believe that any particular deity or religious doctrine is true, or is more true than any other religious doctrine, or is more true than no religious belief at all.

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.

[youngalexander]

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.
Perhaps Jesus and Mo (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/10/19/snake/) have the answer?

[dr lazer blast]

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.


I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.

[elevator]

I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.

The science of atomic theory is a fantastic achievement; and in addition to the atomic bombs have brought us nuclear power and nuclear theory. It was also not the secular scientist that made the decision to drop atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science in itself is not a dangerous endeavor; however pretending that religious doctrines was allegedly mediated by a God over 2000 years ago are valid scientific facts; are dangerous.

The so-called "science" of creationism (recently guised as Intelligent Design) is a perfect example of dangerous claims to scientific knowledge in religious discourse. Tell me which is more dangerous; teaching science as it really is, or teaching science to "comply" with the latest on religious literalism? And Christianity shine with their moral wisdom through the book of Leviticus don't you think? The morality of the Manu Smriti and the Caste System in the Hindu religion is also a fantastic example of dangerous moral ideas in a religious doctrine. My point is; you don't need to invoke the divine to be a moral being and you certainly should never invoke the divine or any "holy" ancient literature (claiming to be the mediated word of God no less) to be an accurate and trustworthy representation of scientific fact.

[Tuffa Nuff]

I have been told at times, that the way things are written in the Bible and other holy texts was chosen to make them easier to understand for the state of education of the people at the time. For myself, this seems a silly notion, because a layperson's science appearing in the Bible would have been no less credible than what IS there in the Bible. Things became as they were by the "power of GodAllahYahweh", (ie. magic). Why not give a scientific explanation to begin with?

Why would God making a big kablooie, and stuff expanding, and coming into existence, and slowly over billions of years becoming what we see today, be harder to accept then what is in Genesis? How is it any easier to believe that God made the heavens and the earth and all, in six, (elastic), days - whoosh?

God could still be magic, and know that it would all come out as he intended, 'cause he would've arranged things just so - so that determinism would do the trick, (I am a compatabilist on the freewill debate).

I'd say that the answer is to do with the educational and knowledge levels of the populace of the day. If them olden day guys had known of this modern sh*t, they'd have put it in the Bible. They could only make up stories which were acceptable to them, and it was essential that they have a god who was one powerful dude, for their possibly well intentioned aim of mass control of the folk, to work.

[NZSkep]

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.


I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.

How do you know this? I’ve never seen anything on the religiousness of the hundreds of scientists involved in making the atomic bomb.
Not to mention, of course, that the only person in history to actually authorise the creation and use of atomic bombs were christian. (being the president of the USA during WW2)

[Tuffa Nuff]

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.


I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.Are you sure?Robert Oppenheimer:-
Religion: Jewish
http://www.nndb.com/people/808/000047667/

Oppenheimer was {over}educated in those fields, which lie outside the scientific tradition, such as his interest in religion, in the Hindu religion in particular...
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/images/misc/wikipedia.gifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer#Scientific_work

[simongc]

Hi Tuffa Nuff - good post

[braces_for_impact]

Cue Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler in 3...2...1...

[dog-on]

To the OP...

God has no scientific knowledge, he simply uses magic.

[Roger Pearse]

If you believe that god created the universe then you must admit that god had to have a ton of scientific knowledge....

...why aren’t the books written with a higher level of precision that would not be open to wide interpretations? ...

Why aren’t there any [mathematical] formulas in the holy books?


From Augustine, De genesi ad litteram (On the literal meaning of Genesis), book 2, chapter 9, written ca. 415 AD:


It is frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture.

Many scholars engaged in lengthy discussions on these matter, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it on one side?

But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge that he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail to their salvation.


Obviously one could quote any number of modern writers, but I thought that a quotation from an ancient Father would indicate that the views given were not merely made up in response to Darwin or whoever.

Incidentally in the days when I was an active scientist, we used to say that if something couldn't be expressed in English but only in complex mathematics, it usually meant that the subject wasn't properly understood. (Not actually invariably true, but often a good rule of thumb).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Question]

but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts


When one doesn't know the answer its always easier to blame god for your lack of knowledge.

I will say one thing, that the writers of that time did have an active imagination....

[Roger Pearse]

but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts


When one doesn't know the answer its always easier to blame god for your lack of knowledge.

I will say one thing, that the writers of that time did have an active imagination....

I'm not sure that you quite followed what Augustine said, tho.

His point was that the bible wasn't a science textbook, and that, although the writers of the bible were not ignorant men by the standards of their day, to include such things would have distracted from the purpose of the book.

If on the other hand we are complaining that people living in 100AD did not have the same advantages of a technical education as are available to those wise enough to be born in 1870, then we might reflect that those born in 1970 could say the same about those born in 1870, and those born in 2070 about those born in 1970. Chronological snobbery makes very little rational sense.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Question]

When one doesn't know the answer its always easier to blame god for your lack of knowledge.

I will say one thing, that the writers of that time did have an active imagination....

I'm not sure that you quite followed what Augustine said, tho.

His point was that the bible wasn't a science textbook, and that, although the writers of the bible were not ignorant men by the standards of their day, to include such things would have distracted from the purpose of the book.

If on the other hand we are complaining that people living in 100AD did not have the same advantages of a technical education as are available to those wise enough to be born in 1870, then we might reflect that those born in 1970 could say the same about those born in 1870, and those born in 2070 about those born in 1970. Chronological snobbery makes very little rational sense.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Do you think they actually knew the answer?

I did get the just of his point but I was coming at it from a different angle. If you were given the task of writing a book that had to be used as a life code for the next 2000 years, what things would you put into it. Remember this is supposed to be the word of an all knowing god.. And you knew it would questioned by each generation, wouldn't putting in some hard facts give the reader a comfort level to the authority of the author?

I agree with you that old books have little relevance today. We can learn from history but it must be adapted to the facts of today. With todays rapidly changing technology and attitudes a 10 year old book seems outdated.

Regards

[Roger Pearse]

I'm not sure that you quite followed what Augustine said, tho.


I agree with you that old books have little relevance today.

I'm not sure how many educated people would share the view that "old books have little relevance today". Didn't the modern world come into existence precisely by the rediscovery of the "old books" written in antiquity at the renaissance?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[dog-on]

I agree with you that old books have little relevance today.

I'm not sure how many educated people would share the view that "old books have little relevance today". Didn't the modern world come into existence precisely by the rediscovery of the "old books" written in antiquity at the renaissance?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Yup, that and the demise of the power of the church during the enlightenment. :wave:

[elevator]

I'm not sure how many educated people would share the view that "old books have little relevance today". Didn't the modern world come into existence precisely by the rediscovery of the "old books" written in antiquity at the renaissance?


I am not trying to speak for "question" here, but it seems as though we were talking about "old books" in a scientific vs. religious context. There are indeed many wonderful ancient books on various philosophical subjects, art, matemathics, and maybe even elementary scientific subjects. Clearly the biblical view on the process of creation doesn't fit today's scientific standards; I mean afterall that's why we still argue the whole Creationism vs. Evolution issue in modern courts.

The original point here I think was that why use the Christian canon (or any other religious doctrine) as the basis of scientific and moral knowledge, when:

Various religious doctrines contradict eachother
Various religious doctrines contradict established science
There are perfectly reasonable secular sources of scientific and moral knowledge (i.e. one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge, or believe in biblical literalism to understand science).


In fact we see several examples or religious adherents working against scientific discovery simply because it does not fit their dogmas.

[Roger Pearse]

I'm not sure how many educated people would share the view that "old books have little relevance today". Didn't the modern world come into existence precisely by the rediscovery of the "old books" written in antiquity at the renaissance?


I am not trying to speak for "question" here, but it seems as though we were talking about "old books" in a scientific vs. religious context. There are indeed many wonderful ancient books on various philosophical subjects, art, matemathics, and maybe even elementary scientific subjects.


This is well put, and was very much the point that I was making here.


Clearly the biblical view on the process of creation doesn't fit today's scientific standards...


Well, if you read St. Augustine, he doesn't think the bible teaches what some people describe as the biblical view!


The original point here I think was that why use the Christian canon (or any other religious doctrine) as the basis of scientific and moral knowledge


Um, isn't this to confuse two different things, when even the ancients didn't think that it was to be used for one of these?


...one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge


The evidence of the last 30 years rather suggests the contrary, you know. The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality (quibbling aside). Here in the UK we have people seriously proposing to create mixed human-animal embryos to experiment on, for instance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[elevator]

What prompted me to reply is that I felt you interpreted "question's" post as to include all ancient literature when talking about "old books", when in fact (without putting words in his mouth) I think he was talking about religious literature when he was talking about "old books". The distiction I feel is quite important as the original post compared the existence of scientific subjects in holy books (books mediated by or written by a divine entity) to contemporary scientific knowledge.

Well, if you read St. Augustine, he doesn't think the bible teaches what some people describe as the biblical view!
Biblical literalism is very much alive today, no matter how much St. Augustine may have argued for a more liberal interpretation of the Bible. I should think all the court cases surrounding religious fundamentalist views should be testament to that fact. If God really wrote the Bible he would have rid it of such absurd ambiguities that enable subjective translation of its content. Isn't it rather puzzling that an alleged infallible text is open to individual interpretations of it's true meaning? Isn't it puzzling that an omniscient and omnipotent God would put scientific passages in a holy book; that because of his omnipotence and omniscience he clearly must have known would be refuted 2000 years down the line?



...one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge

The evidence of the last 30 years rather suggests the contrary, you know. The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality (quibbling aside). Here in the UK we have people seriously proposing to create mixed human-animal embryos to experiment on, for instance.

I would love to see where you have those statistics from. I have seen statistics suggesting exactly the opposite. Norway, for instance, has one of the lowest levels of religiousness in the world; yet enjoys some of the lowest levels of crimes, highest standards of living and happiness, lowest levels of poverty and unemployment. And I repeat the line said by so many atheists before: "show me a moral action done by a religious believer that cannot be done by a non-believer". Religious morality is also selective. A moral Christian will still go to hell as far as a Muslim is concerned. Even if a Christian lived his entire life morally spotless; he would still be condemned by a Muslim. Why? Because he didn't believe in Allah - damned be any moral considerations. Religious morality is selective and subject to revocation and it is based on fear; not moral knowledge. Of course there are exceptions; such as Jainism for example. But we were talking Christianity here; and clearly you would never see a Jain fly planes into skyscrapers.

[dr lazer blast]

I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.Are you sure?

Oppenheimer was {over}educated in those fields, which lie outside the scientific tradition, such as his interest in religion, in the Hindu religion in particular...
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/images/misc/wikipedia.gifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer#Scientific_work

intrest in religion does not mean a practicing hindu. I am interested in islam, but I am far from a practicing muslim, so yes I am sure

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-o.htm

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
-- Robert Oppenheimer, Life Magazine, October 10, 1949

Is anyone going to award me with a 'good post' award? :D

lol, how can anyone be jewish but have an interest in the hindu religion of idols?

[Roger Pearse]

Well, if you read St. Augustine, he doesn't think the bible teaches what some people describe as the biblical view!


Biblical literalism is very much alive today, no matter how much St. Augustine may have argued for a more liberal interpretation of the Bible.



St. Augustine is a biblical literalist, actually. (So am I).



The evidence of the last 30 years rather suggests the contrary, you know. The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality (quibbling aside). Here in the UK we have people seriously proposing to create mixed human-animal embryos to experiment on, for instance.


I would love to see where you have those statistics from. I have seen statistics suggesting exactly the opposite.


Um, I don't know what made you think of statistics. What has happened to our societies over that period is common knowledge. Probably most of us remember from first hand experience.

But anyone who suggests that society has become more moral seems to me to be in a very curious state of mind. Not something I feel the need to argue about, at any rate.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[elevator]

St. Augustine is a biblical literalist, actually. (So am I).
Even better; I assume then that you are able to provide an answer my question in the last post about biblical ambiguity?

Um, I don't know what made you think of statistics. What has happened to our societies over that period is common knowledge. Probably most of us remember from first hand experience.

Of course it is all about statistics. When you present a claim that a religious population is more moral and maybe even more socially beneficial than a non-religious population you must have more than your own personal first hand experience to back it up, agreed?

But anyone who suggests that society has become more moral seems to me to be in a very curious state of mind. Not something I feel the need to argue about, at any rate.
I am not suggesting that society has become more moral, but I am suggesting that IF one society is more moral than another, you can bet it's not because of its high religious population.

I can think of many contemporary studies that suggest exactly opposite of what you claim. A more recent one is Gregory S. Paul's study titled: "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popularity Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" available for download at: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

[Question]

I agree with you that old books have little relevance today.

I'm not sure how many educated people would share the view that "old books have little relevance today". Didn't the modern world come into existence precisely by the rediscovery of the "old books" written in antiquity at the renaissance?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

If you had read the next sentence you would have seen that I said that we CAN learn from history but it needs to be put in context with the facts of today.

[JEST2ASK]

Um, I don't know what made you think of statistics. What has happened to our societies over that period is common knowledge. Probably most of us remember from first hand experience.

But anyone who suggests that society has become more moral seems to me to be in a very curious state of mind. Not something I feel the need to argue about, at any rate.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

A bit Off Topic but could you please list a society / culture that you consider to have been relatively more moral (not merely more outwardly religious) and the time frame of that status.

[elevator]

St. Augustine is a biblical literalist, actually. (So am I).

I don't mean to nitpick here, but I refreshed my history lesson on St. Augustine. I assumed right away that you were talking about St. Augustine of Hippo? Am I correct in that assumption? If so I feel as though my initial claim was correct in that St. Augustine was not at all a biblical literalist; at least not on the topic of scientific knowledge in the Christian canon which was the initial topic of this post.

In fact in his "Literal Interpretation of Genesis" he wrote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

Clearly he took the view that the bible should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts reason and scientific knowledge.

[Question]

Good reply... as you can now see Roger has now focused the thread on St Augustine and has not answered any of the questions either of us has posed.

[dr lazer blast]

But to get back on the topic; I do think it is dangerous to draw knowledge (scientific or moral) from alleged divine sources that have perfectly good roots in well-established secular sciences or moral philosophy. Especially when various religious sources differ (or outright contradict) on many key points.


Sorry to quote the same post again, but I found some more things as well. Specifically the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University to use Nazi data obtained at Dachau, and the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy, which was produced with the bodies of 1,377 executed criminals sent to Professor Eduard Pernkopf at the University of Vienna by the Gestapo.

[elevator]

Sorry to quote the same post again, but I found some more things as well. Specifically the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University to use Nazi data obtained at Dachau, and the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy, which was produced with the bodies of 1,377 executed criminals sent to Professor Eduard Pernkopf at the University of Vienna by the Gestapo.

Seriously, is this going to turn into a debate of which has produced the greater evil; science or religion? I have had the same discussion when debating atheism vs. theism; and I am convinced there are other threads in this forum that lists these elements. But if you do want to go that route; why not bring in the well-known cliches: crusades and the inquisition? Both of these were directly related to a religious doctrine. What about the fundamentalist Christian drive to ban the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa? What about the resistance against stem-cell research which is the most promising medical breakthrough ever in the quest to cure diseases such as cancer, leukemia and parkisons. What about the numerous fundamentalist Muslim Jihadists who believe their doctrine strongly enough to fly planes into buildings or blowing themselves up - all as an act of religious devotion? It is each and every doctrine's claim to exclusive moral and divine knowledge that spawn these atrocities. Why can I say this? Because you don't see these problems in religions that don't claim doctrinal exclusivity or infallibility; such as Jainism, for example.

But that said; I think you initially misunderstood my post. While religion has caused massive casualties all over the world (just as the misuse of science has); that was not really what I had in mind when I used the word "dangerous". Drawing scientific and moral knowledge from religion is dangerous because it assumes that a holy canon written in the historical, scientific and moral context of an ancient society is valid in modern times - when clearly it has been proved to directly contradict not only modern science, but also similar doctrines presented by other religions! This contradiction alone should be reason to question (or outright reject) scientific claims presented in the bible. Clearly, as seen from my quote above; St. Augustine himself recognized this danger.

[Toto]

Please stay on topic. The relative morality of religion vs science is a topic for another forum.

[Roger Pearse]

St. Augustine is a biblical literalist, actually. (So am I).

I don't mean to nitpick here, but I refreshed my history lesson on St. Augustine. I assumed right away that you were talking about St. Augustine of Hippo? Am I correct in that assumption?


Yes: hence my quotation from his De genesim ad litteram.


If so I feel as though my initial claim was correct in that St. Augustine was not at all a biblical literalist; at least not on the topic of scientific knowledge in the Christian canon which was the initial topic of this post.

In fact in his "Literal Interpretation of Genesis" he wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

Clearly he took the view that the bible should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts reason and scientific knowledge.

This is from the same chapter of the same work that I quoted earlier, and is in fact part of the same argument (book 1, chapter 19). Just wondering, did you perhaps find this on the web somewhere, where someone had given it the spin that Augustine is saying "let's ignore the literal sense of Genesis if science contradicts it"? Or do you have one of the translations to hand? (because if so, have a read of all of chapter 19).

What he is saying in both cases is the same; don't interpret the bible in such a way as to be in contradiction with what is factually known about scientific matters, since it is not written for that purpose and doesn't give that kind of information; and certainly don't just adopt a position based on "I think the bible says this, so your science is wrong" when in fact educated people don't read it that way (reading it literally, in both cases).

I'm glad to see your reply, tho; it tends to confirm my feeling that this is a work that should be online. Unfortunately both the translations are copyright; the one I have is unreadable as well.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[lpetrich]

A common counterargument is that there is no point revealing an advanced textbook in particle physics or anything else of that nature. But there is no need to go to such extremes, there are LOTS of simple and helpful things that humanity took a LONG time to discover and could be easily revealed.

* Scientific method and controlled experiments: Francesco Redi's classic experiment on fly origins is very nicely low-tech.

* Zero, negative numbers, place notation, algebraic notation, etc. These make doing mathematics MUCH easier, yet they took a long time to discover.

* A metal rod can protect against lighting.

Etc. etc. etc.

That would be FAR more useful than a lot of ambiguously-worded "prophecies", and FAR more worthwhile to learn than (say) one day some spook will knock up some young lady.

I'd actually have to disagree with this statement. Some of the worse things in mankind have been created by secular scientists. The atomic bomb to name one.
Tell that to everybody who defends the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a Good Thing.

.I'd say that the answer is to do with the educational and knowledge levels of the populace of the day.
The populace? Why the populace? You've got to realize the sort of people who composed the Bible. Priests and the like. Who were willing to write down exactingly detailed specifications for various animal sacrifices and offerings; read the Book of Leviticus some time.

So why not reveal a lot of modern knowledge? If it's difficult to understand, then it can be presented as some sort of arcane truth.

But the only religion I know of that has featured this approach, is Pythagoreanism. So let's make ourselves believe in reincarnation and stop eating beans. :)

(Augustine-thumping snipped...)

Obviously one could quote any number of modern writers, but I thought that a quotation from an ancient Father would indicate that the views given were not merely made up in response to Darwin or whoever.
But they were clearly made up in response to Greco-Roman philosophers' cosmological speculations.

Note that Augustine didn't go any further with that and refuse to take sides on the age of the Universe or claim that the Genesis creation stories could just as well refer to timeless processes in an eternal Universe.

In fact, he was a young-earther, believing that the Universe is only about 6000 years old, created around 5500 BCE, as calculated from the Septuagint version of the genealogies (4000 BCE is from the Masoretic version). And he explicitly harrumphed at those who claimed that the Universe is older than that. I can quote chapter and verse from his City of God, Chapter 18.

I'm not sure that you quite followed what Augustine said, tho.

His point was that the bible wasn't a science textbook, and that, although the writers of the bible were not ignorant men by the standards of their day, to include such things would have distracted from the purpose of the book.
But the Bible itself does not contain such a disclaimer, so why should I take seriously some theologian who did not quite practice what he preached?

And why not criticize anyone who claims that the Bible has lots of great scientific discoveries in it?

That reminds me of how I've never seen Xian apologists discuss arguments that they think that they ought not to use, though I've seen a few theologians claim here and there that this or that argument is not very convincing.

If on the other hand we are complaining that people living in 100AD did not have the same advantages of a technical education as are available to those wise enough to be born in 1870, then we might reflect that those born in 1970 could say the same about those born in 1870, and those born in 2070 about those born in 1970. Chronological snobbery makes very little rational sense.
That's absolutely, totally, completely behind the point. We are talking about some entity that could understand relativistic quantum field theory and lots of other arcane things about our Universe, yet who never bothered to even so much as hint at that. Look at the Book of Job where God describes to Job all the things that he has created and implies "Who do you think you are?" That would be an ideal place for such revelations.

Clearly the biblical view on the process of creation doesn't fit today's scientific standards...

Well, if you read St. Augustine, he doesn't think the bible teaches what some people describe as the biblical view!
But Augustine did think that the Universe is only about 6000 years old, which is what one calculates from the Biblical genealogies.

And he treated even the earliest of the Bible's "history" as literal history in his City of God, making a comparative timeline of Biblical and Greco-Roman history.

The original point here I think was that why use the Christian canon (or any other religious doctrine) as the basis of scientific and moral knowledge

Um, isn't this to confuse two different things, when even the ancients didn't think that it was to be used for one of these?
The ancients? Or some selective Augustine-thumping?


...one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge


The evidence of the last 30 years rather suggests the contrary, you know. The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality (quibbling aside). Here in the UK we have people seriously proposing to create mixed human-animal embryos to experiment on, for instance.
I fail to see how that is supposedly so morally evil. And since the UK has not fallen into complete societal collapse and all-out anarchy, I think that it's fair to say that that place continues to be reasonably moral.

And where in the Bible does it state "Thou shalt not create mixed-species embryos"?

Um, I don't know what made you think of statistics. What has happened to our societies over that period is common knowledge. Probably most of us remember from first hand experience.
Common knowledge? That's news to me.

Roger Pearse, would you like it someone claimed that Jesus Christ had been homosexual and had treated that claim as common knowledge?

[elevator]

Just wondering, did you perhaps find this on the web somewhere, where someone had given it the spin that Augustine is saying "let's ignore the literal sense of Genesis if science contradicts it"? Or do you have one of the translations to hand? (because if so, have a read of all of chapter 19).

What he is saying in both cases is the same; don't interpret the bible in such a way as to be in contradiction with what is factually known about scientific matters, since it is not written for that purpose and doesn't give that kind of information; and certainly don't just adopt a position based on "I think the bible says this, so your science is wrong" when in fact educated people don't read it that way (reading it literally, in both cases).

I don’t really know why you are so hung up on St. Augustine. Yes, I did read this on the web; but from various sources. One was Wikipedia which incidentally uses the same "first hand experience" that you are so fond of in a previous post. As such I feel it is an important source, because the writers of this article are much on the same level of expertise as you are. The other source was the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which also lists a healthy collection of English translations of his writings). Both agree that St. Augustine did indeed believe in the use of reason in areas where science and religion was conflicted and that clinging to biblical literalism in cases where science clearly has the better answer was "idiotic" and "laughable". In your last post though, strangely enough, you seem to agree with this interpretation, despite your initial attempt to portray St. Augustine as a biblical literalist on the topics of this debate (i.e. scientific knowledge). It may indeed seem as though he was a literalist on many subjects, but science doesn't seem to have been one of them.

My original position (one which I still maintain) is that there are no good reasons to invoke the divine or holy literature in matters of science and morality; when clearly there are perfectly valid secular ways of doing so. Science has no place in religious literature (especially not when it contradict or inhibit contemporary scientific research) and morality is in no way an exclusively religious phenomenon. I have posted quite a few posts in this thread advocating exactly why I think it is so.

But this whole discussion of St. Augustine is really drawing attention from the real topic of this debate; which is the claim to scientific knowledge in the biblical canon. My position on the subject is: you should not draw scientific knowledge from the biblical canon (or "the holy books" as phrased by the original poster).

But more importantly; you also have not attempted to justify your claim that a religious society is a moral society other than claiming that it is "common knowledge" and that we should all remember it from "first hand experience". Several posters now, including me, have argued against this observation.

[Roger Pearse]

Just wondering, did you perhaps find this on the web somewhere, where someone had given it the spin that Augustine is saying "let's ignore the literal sense of Genesis if science contradicts it"? Or do you have one of the translations to hand? (because if so, have a read of all of chapter 19).

What he is saying in both cases is the same; don't interpret the bible in such a way as to be in contradiction with what is factually known about scientific matters, since it is not written for that purpose and doesn't give that kind of information; and certainly don't just adopt a position based on "I think the bible says this, so your science is wrong" when in fact educated people don't read it that way (reading it literally, in both cases).

I don’t really know why you are so hung up on St. Augustine.
<snip stuff off wikipedia>


Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it rather pointless to imagine what the bible might mean, and then criticise it for what I have imagined myself. How do I know that what I think is right, I ask myself. That's why I introduce an ancient writer on the subject. Sorry if that offended you!


But this whole discussion of St. Augustine is really drawing attention from the real topic of this debate; which is the claim to scientific knowledge in the biblical canon...


I have no real interest in this; I merely sought to stem the flow of strawmen; in vain, apparently.


But more importantly; you also have not attempted to justify your claim that a religious society is a moral society ...


Hey, I don't feel any obligation to enter an argument merely because someone wants to have a fight! (You have, in any event, misunderstood what I wrote).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Fenton Mulley]

This is a great example of how Roger says whatever crazy shit he wants and then slinks away (while putting the blame on you) when called on it.

[elevator]

Hey, I don't feel any obligation to enter an argument merely because someone wants to have a fight! (You have, in any event, misunderstood what I wrote).
I am not trying to pick a fight; if I made that impression please accept my apology. However, I do feel that when you put forth statements suggesting the moral superiority of religious societies, you should be prepared to substantiate it. As of yet, the only substatiation you have come up with is a plead to "common knowledge" and "first hand experience". I believe your exact statement was: "The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality" which was a reply to my statement where I asserted: "one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge". If there is any way I could have misunderstood that post; please enlighten me as to its true meaning and/or intended interpretation.

I have no real interest in this; I merely sought to stem the flow of strawmen; in vain, apparently.
I don't really see the source for your "flow of strawmen". Again; I have explained the reasoning behind my assertions in several posts above. If you feel any of my posts constructed strawmen; please point them out so I may elaborate.

[lpetrich]

But more importantly; you also have not attempted to justify your claim that a religious society is a moral society ...

Hey, I don't feel any obligation to enter an argument merely because someone wants to have a fight! (You have, in any event, misunderstood what I wrote).
Roger Pearse, why do you claim that elevator was trying to pick a fight with you?

And your refusing to justify that alleged "common knowledge" makes us wonder how supportable your claim really is.

[andrewcriddle]

Hey, I don't feel any obligation to enter an argument merely because someone wants to have a fight! (You have, in any event, misunderstood what I wrote).
Roger Pearse, why do you claim that elevator was trying to pick a fight with you?

And your refusing to justify that alleged "common knowledge" makes us wonder how supportable your claim really is.
IIUC what Roger meant by "common knowledge" is that the decline of traditional Christian belief has occurred at the same time as the decline of traditional Christian moral values.

This seems as an empirical claim broadly true. One could of course question a/ which is cause and which is effect and b/ whether this is a decline in moral values per se, or a change in moral values from one framework to another. But the empirical claim itself would still remain valid.

Andrew Criddle

[elevator]

IIUC what Roger meant by "common knowledge" is that the decline of traditional Christian belief has occurred at the same time as the decline of traditional Christian moral values.

This seems as an empirical claim broadly true. One could of course question a/ which is cause and which is effect and b/ whether this is a decline in moral values per se, or a change in moral values from one framework to another. But the empirical claim itself would still remain valid.
I hope Ipetrich don't mind me answering this (am sure he will reply as well). What I think initially started this was the (apparent) assertion that somehow religious belief is a prerequisite for possessing moral knowledge. And if this religious component is lacking in a society, then we experience the moral deterioration of society as a whole. I have linked to a recent research paper on the subject in a previous post, and the result is exactly the opposite. Not only does the study assert an opposite conclusion of that of Roger Pearse, but it also asserts that no cross-national study has ever been published in support of Roger's views. Therefore if you assert that Roger's claims have empirical truth to it, this truth must be found outside of religion. If moral deterioration is experienced in a society; statistical research show that religion (or rather lack thereof) most likely is not the culprit and that we must look elsewhere for reasons for this moral deterioration; such as higher population density, higher unemployment rates and class differences.

I think your analogy is a little flawed too in that you seem to assume that in observing the deterioration of a particular framework, the moral views based on that framework will deteriorate as well. This sounds correct were it not for the fact that Christian moral views are not exclusive to Christianity! Much (if not all) of the moral knowledge presented in the Christian doctrine has counterparts in other religions and even secular philosophy. Christianity even presents ancient moral values that today are considered immoral.

One must therefore be careful about claiming moral exclusivity to a framework that is neither unique nor perfect.

[lpetrich]

elevator, that was pretty much what I had been thinking. And I'd like to see Roger Pearse explain to us what he considers to have been a Golden Age of True Xianity without using the No True Scotsman fallacy to explain away counterevidence.

And getting back to the main subject, I'm reminded of something that Carl Sagan reported in his book The Demon-Haunted World. Several people had written to him claiming to be in contact with ET's. He would respond by having these people ask those ET's various questions.

Arcane mathematical and scientific sorts of questions, like what's a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, would not get answered.

Questions like "Shall we be good?" would get answered.

Neither religious prophets nor CS's ET informants seem to have any knowledge that they could only have acquired from their alleged sources.


Furthermore, this dumbing-down hypothesis, as it might be called, is contrary to a common apologetic: prophecy fulfillment. Many Xian apologists like to tell us of all the prophecies that Jesus Christ had supposedly fulfilled. But why reveal such things and not reveal lots and lots and lots of useful things? And things that will make you seem like a super genius to the rest of the world?

[Question]

Many Xian apologists like to tell us of all the prophecies that Jesus Christ had supposedly fulfilled. But why reveal such things and not reveal lots and lots and lots of useful things? And things that will make you seem like a super genius to the rest of the world?

This is along the lines of my op, wouldn't he have converted a few of the atheists if he had said not to be beside the shore of the Indian ocean in Dec a few years ago, or don't build you towns at these GPS locations because of earthquakes, etc etc. To those that say that the people of the time wouldn't understand, it is easily handled with a past present and future section.

It seems to me that the Xians are so buried in the wording, translation and their interpretation of the book that they cant stand back and look at the implication or the results.

[Roger Pearse]

IIUC what Roger meant by "common knowledge" is that the decline of traditional Christian belief has occurred at the same time as the decline of traditional Christian moral values.

This seems as an empirical claim broadly true. One could of course question a/ which is cause and which is effect and b/ whether this is a decline in moral values per se, or a change in moral values from one framework to another. But the empirical claim itself would still remain valid.


Thank you Andrew.

Of course I would qualify this by suggesting that the 'traditional Christian moral values' are not necessarily Christian, since we find the same morals discussed by the philosophers.

Incidentally I have just seen the following article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908958.ece), indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13 (with some supposed caveats of the kind that we have seen so many times before; produced as excuses when these liberalisations go through, and are thereafter ignored). Still, gay groups are campaigning for a homosexual age of consent of 14, so I suppose it will soon happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Amaleq13]

Incidentally I have just seen the following article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908958.ece), indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13...

What is the "Christian" basis for establishing age of consent? I wouldn't think the Bible would offer much to argue against 13. In fact, I suspect it could be used to support such an age.

[elevator]

Of course I would qualify this by suggesting that the 'traditional Christian moral values' are not necessarily Christian, since we find the same morals discussed by the philosophers.
That sounds like a complete 180 compared to previous posts where you assert that there is a direct correlation between Christianity and morality. If that is correct; great!

[Roger Pearse]

Of course I would qualify this by suggesting that the 'traditional Christian moral values' are not necessarily Christian, since we find the same morals discussed by the philosophers.

That sounds like a complete 180 compared to previous posts where you assert that there is a direct correlation between Christianity and morality. If that is correct; great!

I'm afraid that people have attributed all sorts of things to me in this thread (without any malice), which actually I did not say and do not in fact believe myself. Sorry, but it is so, and it's happened again here. Can't I be allowed merely to say what I do say, rather than be supposed to confess to various stereotyped positions?

Actually I find that this sort of thing tends to happen when people 'know' what someone is about to say -- some cliche or other --, and respond to what they think he is saying, rather than what is *actually* being said.

Of course with many people they really *are* articulating cliches, and often not very well, so it's understandable to a degree.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[elevator]

I'm afraid that people have attributed all sorts of things to me in this thread (without any malice), which actually I did not say and do not in fact believe myself. Sorry, but it is so, and it's happened again here. Can't I be allowed merely to say what I do say, rather than be supposed to confess to various stereotyped positions?
Oh, by all means! That's what I have wanted all along; for you to justify your position that "The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality". All I have heard so far is pleads to "common knowledge" and accusations of strawmen. Myself and several others have clearly given you several valid counterarguments to your position, all of which you have so far elegantly avoided. I am convinced that if you could give a proper argument to support your position; most people in here, religious or not, would listen quite intently.

If you do not intend to defend your position why even present it in the first place? Again; I am not picking a fight, I just hear all these accusations from you about the deterioration of morality in the non-religious, construction of strawmen, how everyone in this forum misinterprets you and ignores you. I am very much interested in hearing your side of things and if you could explain it in a way that leaves out the vagueness and ambiguity then maybe we would all understand what you actually are trying to say?

[lpetrich]

It seems to me that the Xians are so buried in the wording, translation and their interpretation of the book that they cant stand back and look at the implication or the results.
Yes, they often seem like Bible-worshippers.

Of course I would qualify this by suggesting that the 'traditional Christian moral values' are not necessarily Christian, since we find the same morals discussed by the philosophers.
Why not be more specific? And show how the UK has turned into a Hobbesian war of all against all, like what happened to Albania in the late 1990's, only much worse.

Incidentally I have just seen the following article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908958.ece), indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13 ...
Sex again. Is that all you can come up with? And not some super-Albania?

I'm afraid that people have attributed all sorts of things to me in this thread (without any malice), which actually I did not say and do not in fact believe myself.
You were the one talking about your society's alleged complete lack of morals, and the only thing you could come up with is mixed-species embryos and lowering the age of consent.

[MrTunaFace]

If you believe that god created the universe then you must admit that god had to have a ton of scientific knowledge. He had to know about astronomy, physics, biology, etc etc.

If you have ever had a conversation with anyone who is highly scientific or an engineer or a geek you will hear a different conversation then if you were talking to a high school buddy. They all talk with a certain precision in their field and even when they are just having a casual conversation there is a certain precision to the words that they chose.

So here are my questions

When one reads the holy books, the translated words are very ambiguous and open to wide and many interpretations. This in my opinion is why there are many religions or sects within a religion. A scientist or engineer does not speak this way, so why aren’t the books written with a higher level of precision that would not be open to wide interpretations?

Why didn’t god just put in the books E=MC2, some scientific type would have wondered about that and maybe figured it out centuries before Einstein?

Why aren’t there any formulas in the holy books?

If you were running an experiment to see if you could get everyone on a certain planet to believe in just one god and you observed the mess we have now wouldn’t you show up and adjust some of the parameters that you started with and rerun it?

If you wanted everyone on a planet to follow the same rules wouldn’t you make the same copy for each population center?

Wouldn’t you carve them on the biggest stone you could find so it wouldn’t get lost or destroyed in a flood?

If an all knowing god was the source for the holy books and he knew that English would be the quasi world language wouldn’t he have written at least a portion in English?

:wave:

Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

[Toto]

...
Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

[MrTunaFace]

...
Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

[Toto]

Then why didn't he put the preliminary steps in the Bible? Or even some more elementary science concepts, such as the germ theory of disease?

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

The taste of peanut butter vs. steak has a naturalistic solution, in terms of the chemical composition of the foods and the evolution of human tastes based on the diet of early man. The color of the sky has a naturalistic solution (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/atmos/blusky.html). Your fashion choices may also be explained using natural selection and cultural anthropology. No need for a god to explain things.

We can also explain the lack of valid scientific concepts in the Bible, if there is no god. But it seems incompatible with an omniscient god.

[aa5874]

Why doesn't peanut butter taste like steak? Why is the sky blue? Why am I not wearing a tie with a t-shirt? I don't know. Take it up with God.

Take it up with God? You mean I must shout out loud with my eyes closed and God would answer me.

God, why is the sky blue? He is not going to answer.

Ask the scientist.

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering.

[Toto]

MrTunaFace derail (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=243979)

[Agenda07]

Incidentally I have just seen the following article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908958.ece), indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13 (with some supposed caveats of the kind that we have seen so many times before; produced as excuses when these liberalisations go through, and are thereafter ignored). Still, gay groups are campaigning for a homosexual age of consent of 14, so I suppose it will soon happen.

If you want to hold that up an example of the decline of Christian morality (which I think Amaleq13 answered nicely) then surely you should consider the moral progress that has been made even as Christian belief declines as evidence against your claim?

To take just one example, it's only within the last couple of decades that it became illegal for a man to rape his wife (the House of Lords repealed the relevant law in 1991, ruling that marriage does not constitute irevocable consent to sex).

How does it fit into your scheme?

[Question]

Why would God just simply put "E=MC2" in the Bible without the process of how to reach it?

I was using that as an example of how there is no "future" section of the bible, theres an old and a new(which is also old) but no future.....

If you where writing a book that was going to lead people for the next 2000 years the focus should have been the future not the past...

IE
This is how to prevent aids
This is where tsunami's will hit on these dates
This is where earthquakes are going to happen on these dates
This is how to prevent global warming

Just a few of the tidbits he could have included.