Science and ancient texts

Gregory

So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting!

christian2017

So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting! — Gregory

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy, many books on theoretical physics seem to be pure philosophy because the lack proofs and equations. Even though theoretical physics doesn't currently have as much practical uses at our present time, those people from CERN work with equations and mathematical proofs, as well as test results a great deal, for each day they are at work.

TheMadFool

So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting! — Gregory

I just wish I could be there when people in the far future will open the pages of a "modern" book, look upon the words so carefully crafted by the writers of today and say "dead symbols", something you're suggesting here. As meaningless as what you claim ancient texts are, by the same token, so are the words spoken and written as of now, including these that I write and those that you wrote. :smile:

TheMadFool

↪Gregory

Is there a giant Noah's Ark in America? I saw a short documentary on it. It's supposed to be a Ken Ham project in Kentucky and there's a scene in which Ken Ham teaches his audience of young children to respond to scientific claims of the past with the line, "were you there?"

So, does "were you there?" inflict the necessary amount of damage to refute all scientific claims of earth's history?

Firstly, it seems to be as good a rebuttal of science as of creationism. Just as science talks of earth's history, so does creationism and in both cases, no one was there. I could as easily ask a creationist "were you there?" as I could an evolutionary biologist or a geologist.

Secondly, the question, "were you there?" indicates that the only proof permissible is an eye-witness account. The problem with this is that it ignores a vital piece of information about causality viz. that an event's occurrence can be inferred from the effects it leaves in its wake. I don't need to be there to know a bomb went off for I can infer it from the mess it causes. I guess I'm considering a befitting reply to, "were you there?" is "you don't need to be there."

Wayfarer

Answers in Genesis is unadulterated nonsense. That bloke used to have billboards in Sydney but Australians were far too sensible for his nonsense, so he had to relocate to Kentucky.

Gregory

Thanks for the responses.

As meaningless as what you claim ancient texts are, by the same token, so are the words spoken and written as of now, including these that I write and those that you wrote — TheMadFool

They mean something to me, and there is much more human communication between you and I on this forum than between you and Aristotle's texts. I just finished reading Phenomenology of Spirit for the third time. Every time I read it I get a different interpretation. I have no clue what the guy originally meant in that old German. This principle applies stronger and stronger as we go back into the past. Wittgenstein was wrong in saying there are no true philosophical problems, but he has a point about the "social game". Bullshit they know how to translate the Rosetta stone! Historians have the biggest imaginations of any group of scholars. In general I reject history and all it's subdivisions as unscientific when it goes back more than a few hundred years. You are born, open your eyes, and latter find yellowed paper in a library or musuem. Why think it has wisdom because it's yellow? Why think you can get on the same brain wave as the author?

Gregory

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy — christian2017

Can you give an example of a theoretician combination several datas and not having to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis about them is right? If it all has to be tested, then my point stands

christian2017

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy
— christian2017

Can you give an example of a theoretician combination several datas and not having to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis about them is right? If it all has to be tested, then my point stands — Gregory

https://home.cern/

check out this link. They aren't the only theoretical physics association but they are one of the more notable ones.

TheMadFool

They mean something to me, and there is much more human communication between you and I on this forum than between you and Aristotle's texts — Gregory

:sad:

Wittgenstein was wrong in saying there are no true philosophical problems, but he has a point about the "social game". — Gregory

Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong?

Answers in Genesis is unadulterated nonsense. That bloke used to have billboards in Sydney but Australians were far too sensible for his nonsense, so he had to relocate to Kentucky. — Wayfarer

:sad: What if, just what if, he is right?

The current version of creationism draws on real scientific discoveries and facts. What if it's like Portrait mistaken of 18th century lady is early picture of a transvestite? There are the indisputable facts - fossils and all - but these facts point to creationism as much as it points to evolution et al.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. — Gregory

The problem with fundamental religions is that they cannot tell good from evil.

Just look at Yahweh, the god the mainstream fundamentals follow and idol worship.

Their abeyance to that satanic god shows you just how un-important morals are to the religious.

They are satanic and that proof is all you need to know that the mainstream religions are immoral religions.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't need to be there to know a bomb went off for I can infer it from the mess it causes. — TheMadFool

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wayfarer — Wayfarer

+ 1 for this.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

There are the indisputable facts - fossils and all - but these facts point to creationism as much as it points to evolution et al. — TheMadFool

Even if creationism were true, would you kneel to a genocidal and infanticidal god and think such a moral monster to be good?

Regards
DL

Gregory

↪christian2017

Theoretical physicists would have to understand matter in itself in order to come up with truth apart from experiments. I claim such is impossible. If something is not solely confirmed by experiments, it's theoretical PHILOSoPHY

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Amen

Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong? — TheMadFool

This forum has all kinds of meaningful philosophical discussions which Wittgentstein would call "word games" for the sole reason that he personally hadn't the patience to think them through

christian2017

Theoretical physicists would have to understand matter in itself in order to come up with truth apart from experiments. I claim such is impossible. If something is not solely confirmed by experiments, it's theoretical PHILOSoPHY

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

Amen

Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong?
— TheMadFool

This forum has all kinds of meaningful philosophical discussions which Wittgentstein would call "word games" for the sole reason that he personally hadn't the patience to think them through — Gregory

Gregory you are mixing forum topics, so if i join in on this i'll be deliberately swapping forum topics.

If you can successfully argue that all these things pertain to the OP relating to "Science and ancient texts" i'll reply to what you posted above on this particular forum topic.
-----------
Did you see the link i sent you concerning CERN or the CERN website? What did you think of the website? It relates to theoretical physics.

and thanks for reposting what the Bishop said, i've heard him say that 25 to 100 times over the past 6 months. If you would like to have a conversation with me on religion (not sure why you would) send me a private message or start a new OP or sift through 100s of previous posts to get your answer or to argue your point.

I haven't talked to TheMadFool recently except several days ago. I don't remember having a sharp disagreement with him in the past several days. What was his conversation pertaining to? I could do a quick study of Wittgenstein, but at this point in time why would i do a "half butt" study of someone, just so i can form a partially formulated opinion. Do you have particular passage of his you would like to discuss?

Gregory

Gregory you are mixing forum topics, so if i join in on this i'll be deliberately swapping forum topics. — christian2017

I was just responding to posts and seeing where it went. Back to the OP topic for a moment: ye I saw that website. What I want to know is what principles do theoretical physicists start with guide them as they look at the data. Why not just have date collectors? Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy.

This thread is about religion AND science however. Gnostic Christian Bishop makes many great points. I think the vast majority of Christians (including Mormons ect.) in this country are fake as can be BECAUSE of their religion. If someone thinks they had a religious experience and are obsessed with sharing it with others, they clearly didn't have a real spiritual experience because a real one is personal. Duh! It's simply the most narcissistic group of religions ever created by animals (men). The world as we know it does not have its origin in the Abrahamic God. , Again, duh!! The Theravada school of Buddhism explicitly teaches that there is no supreme personal god. Them there are a much smarter group of people. Double boo to Billy Graham, William Craig, and the rest of the people who stared at their own souls all day

So the ancient texts are nothing but dead symbols. What's left but to do the "social game" (which includes doing philosophy, which I'm fond of) as we socially distance, and do more experiments in science!

Gregory

"There are the indisputable facts - fossils and all - but these facts point to creationism as much as it points to evolution et al."
— TheMadFool

No they don't. They indicate evolution. Biological studies on how genes mutate go to proving it further. "Answers in Genesis" wants to base their beliefs on a general book for which we have not an original copy for any single particular book in it. These people think they can communicate with cave men, and would rather do that then try to work with the continual en-devours of men of science

christian2017

I was just responding to posts and seeing where it went. Back to the OP topic for a moment: ye I saw that website. What I want to know is what principles do theoretical physicists start with guide them as they look at the data. Why not just have date collectors? Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy.

This thread is about religion AND science however. Gnostic Christian Bishop makes many great points. I think the vast majority of Christians (including Mormons ect.) in this country are fake as can be BECAUSE of their religion. If someone thinks they had a religious experience and are obsessed with sharing it with others, they clearly didn't have a real spiritual experience because a real one is personal. Duh! It's simply the most narcissistic group of religions ever created by animals (men). The world as we know it does not have its origin in the Abrahamic God. , Again, duh!! The Theravada school of Buddhism explicitly teaches that there is no supreme personal god. Them there are a much smarter group of people. Double boo to Billy Graham, William Craig, and the rest of the people who stared at their own souls all day

So the ancient texts are nothing but dead symbols. What's left but to do the "social game" (which includes doing philosophy, which I'm fond of) as we socially distance, and do more experiments in science! — Gregory

Lets start with, "why not just have data collectors?" Do you mean people who conduct and analyze scientific tests?

"Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy."

Considering i have never worked for something like CERN, i couldn't tell you exactly what goes on there, but i would argue most of it is equations, proofs, and tests, and some philosophy.

I do agree alot of Pop science books perhaps portray theoretical physics as alot of philosophy and imagination. Things were different the scientific world during Einstein's time.

___________________________

I would argue Buddhism is roughly comparable to the Mormon church in terms of ethics. Here is an article if you would like on Buddhism in Thailand.

https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2474&context=etd

or

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution

i don't know if the first link will work considering its a pdf.

If thats how you feel about Abrahamic religions, well maybe you know something i don't. I do agree the modern christian church is trash though. I'm not going into a detailed conversation about that right now unless you want me too. Too put it simply it deals alot with tithes/offerings and also money in general.

Also Buddhism has holy books.

Yes i like science also. I do in fact believe in evolution.

Gregory

Here is an article if you would like on Buddhism in Thailand. — christian2017

Thanks

I do agree the modern christian church is trash though. — christian2017

I've seen a lot more hard core Christians freaking out over the virus than non-believers

I'm not going into a detailed conversation about that right now unless you want me too — christian2017

You may

Also Buddhism has holy books. — christian2017

They read and treat them very different than Western religions do however. Alan Watts mentioned a monastery in Asia that had religious texts on this spiralling thing and when you spin it you can consider yourself to have read them. (This reminds me of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys going to a library on acid in 1967 and running his hands over one of Kant's book in order to absorb the knowledge. Off topic but interesting :)

Gregory

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution — christian2017

Sex. It inherently has a sinful side and a good side. It's completely paradoxical, and there appears to be no way to untangle them. Best to remind ourselves we are like the lions and the birds. The paradox of sex is like the paradox of liking butts. Butts are beautiful, but look what they do! However, take away the poop and the butt loses it's charm. The Christian way of dealing with this issue is absolutely absurd

christian2017

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution
— christian2017

Sex. It inherently has a sinful side and a good side. It's completely paradoxical, and there appears to be no way to untangle them. Best to remind ourselves we are like the lions and the birds. The paradox of sex is like the paradox of liking butts. Butts are beautiful, but look what they do! However, take away the poop and the butt loses it's charm. The Christian way of dealing with this issue is absolutely absurd — Gregory

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions.

Gregory

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions. — christian2017

Of course there are sexual crimes. Some worse than others. I think every sexually active person has done a sexual sin before, but probably also morally upright sexual acts. It's such a confusing act. Some parts of good, some others must allow evil to creep in. But Christians usually say "find one person and stay with that one person forever, and tell everyone else they have to do the same". That's the worse idea ever. It goes (in their minds) from always being a sin outside marriage to be a blessed act in marriage. It's not correct. Marriage has little to do with sexual morality

christian2017

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions.
— christian2017

Of course there are sexual crimes. Some worse than others. I think every sexually active person has done a sexual sin before, but probably also morally upright sexual acts. It's such a confusing act. Some parts of good, some others must allow evil to creep in. But Christians usually say "find one person and stay with that one person forever, and tell everyone else they have to do the same". That's the worse idea ever. It goes (in their minds) from always being a sin outside marriage to be a blessed act in marriage. It's not correct. Marriage has little to do with sexual morality — Gregory

if thats how you feel thats how you feel.

Gregory

As an outline, sex starts with an evil intention and ends with a morally good completion of the act. So sex seems to be neutral morally. (Of course rape and stuff are different) If you enjoyed the cancellation, good. Sex can cause pain too though

TheMadFool

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Indeed, if we look at this in the framework of the supernatural vs the natural, the need for eyewitnesses, those who were there, is a more pressing concern for miraculous events than natural events. Ergo, the question, "were you there?" is more appropriate for creationism than any shade of naturalism.

TheMadFool

Even if creationism were true, would you kneel to a genocidal and infanticidal god and think such a moral monster to be good?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

For some, that god commanded genocide and infanticide is disputable.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

For some, that god commanded genocide and infanticide is disputable. — TheMadFool

Not to literalists and the vast majority of Christians are to some degree, literalists.

They have to be to believe in Satan and Jesus, heaven and hell.

I agree with your view of the witnesses.

Miracles ended when the camera was invented.

Regards
DL

TheMadFool

Miracles ended when the camera was invented. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How true. The camera, in the hands of the honest, is the perfect witness, ready to record any miraculous event as and when they occur, and yet, as we're all familiar with, a miracle is just one camera trick away.

TheMadFool

Not to literalists and the vast majority of Christians are to some degree, literalists.

They have to be to believe in Satan and Jesus, heaven and hell — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Right!

deletedusercb

↪TheMadFool

There are a few different spiritual disciplines that count on cameras to record miraculous things without using any tricks. It's a myth that a camera is somehow an objective eye. Auras, ghosts, energy fields, ufos, ectoplasma, mysterious creatures and much more have been recorded or seemingly recorded by people who have not manipulated the images. How? Well, that depends on one's paradigm to some degree. But this is because cameras, like eyes, will distort and interpret reality. Blend things, creat objects out of shadows and halos of light and so on. Of course, perhaps they have actually caught real things that we have not yet confirmed via science. But the point is that cameras, much like any sense organ, especially when one adds in the development of the film (iow there are several stages of 'perception' and 'translation') are not merely objective. They are not perfect witnesses.

Of course dishonest people can further add manipulation to this at every stage of photographic development. But even without any dishonesty all sorts of miraculous things can be confirmed or 'confirmed'.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

a miracle is just one camera trick away. — TheMadFool

So are aliens.

Neither aliens or gods are curing amputees.

Regards
DL

Science and ancient texts

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions