Augustine was an self-centered fantasist and an earth-centered ignoramus: he was guiltily convinced that god cared about his trivial theft from some unimportant pear trees, and quite persuaded -- by an analogous solipsism -- that the sun revolved around the earth.

Again, Augustine is a person who lived in the ancient or medieval times. I am not sure if we could take 100% of what the text is saying as infallible truth. I don't know who even wrote it, and even if I knew the author, why should I believe the text? I have never met the person called Augustine, and never had any conversation with him either, so it would be impossible for me to pass any judgments about him by reading some text about Augustine.

I just think they are brainwashed or similar. Some of the arguments I have according to the books I have read are the following ones:
Religious people often assume that those without a belief in the supernatural cannot find beauty and inspiration in this world. Non-believers know that meaning in this world is of their own making and not dictated by a higher being... (Elisabeth Cornwell, Evolutionary Psychologist, "I Don't Need God to be Inspired," Center for Inquiry - LA, 7 October 2012)
In case I haven't mentioned this before, I'm an atheist. I do not believe there is any mind/body separation. All we are is our brains. We are chemical reactions. We are stuff - Penn Jillette, Presto! How I Made Over 100 Pounds Disappear and Other Magical Tales, Simon & Schuster, 2016, p.125. — javi2541997

Some religious people ....not all. It it irrational to say "All religious people are such and such..." or without the quantifier "Some", but to say "Religious people are such and such" is not a confirmed comment, because there are bound to be other religious people who are not. The writer of the text has not produced any concrete evidence to prove that he / she had gone around the whole world, investigated all the religious people, and came to the conclusion.

Where do you get your information about the original meaning of logos? I am looking for a reason to believe you know what you are talking about, versus you just heard something and came up with an idea you believe is true. The reason it rains is not because a god says rain, fall from the sky. The reason for rain is more complex than that, and that is logos. — Athena

Just looked up my Dictionary of Philosophy for "Logos". It says - Greek, statement, principle, law, reason, proportion.

It derived from the verb "lego" which denotes "I say".
Therefore, I say and confirm that Logos comes from language.

In fact we have the Tank of Logic on our side. Covering our back. — dimosthenis9

:100: :up: :wink:

I am really curious about how well the Taliban will do when they have control of Afghanistan because I don't think they know much about the modern world and things like managing the utilities of a nation so that everyone has clean water and electricity. Organizing a nation requires more than fighting for power and the Taliban have a lot to learn about the modern world. Humans are born only with the capability of learning, not with the ability to reason that must be learned and their ability to learn has a window of time. Referal children will never be as normal people if their windows of learning close before they are found. — Athena

I don't watch TV, or read the news at all lately, so am not aware of the current affairs of the world. I just read the old books whenever have some free time these days. Just wish and hope all goes well, and am sure it will.

Without experience, human beings would not be as they are and they would not be able to function in the man-made reality we have created. Higher-level animals learn from each other and this is essential to their survival. Humans have created huge vocabularies that make it possible to think about many things, such as what is the difference between reason and empirical thinking, and a great ape can not, and would not, get involved in such a discussion. — Athena

Logic, maths, deductive knowledge don't need experience. 1+1 = 2. You know it instantly without having to experience anything.

All humans are mortal
Socrates is a human
===============
Therefore Socrates is mortal

You don't need any experience to come to the conclusion in that syllogism.
Try to get that across to apes or cats.

No, the reason of all things in the thing. Humans may or may not come to understand the reasons. We do not have global warming because humans reason this is so. We have global warming because the conditions are right for that, and it is our task to discover the reason. Science is discovering the reasons, not creating them. — Athena

I don't understand this text, but will try to decipher what it is trying to imply. To me, reason is a human faculty of mind, not something existing out there in the objects. Science cannot discover reasons. Reason is not some physical entity. It is a priori ability of mind, an abstract concept. Some might say it is meaningless because it is an empty concept - but it is not empty. They just think it is empty, because they cannot see it. Reason is already in human mind, nowhere out there.

Science tries to discover laws of the nature via empirical observations. At the end of the day, Science also need, and rely on reason to come to some senses on what they are trying to do.

You may think that but how much have you studied the subject of animal thinking and communication?

Where do you get your information about the original meaning of logos? I am looking for a reason to believe you know what you are talking about, versus you just heard something and came up with an idea you believe is true. The reason it rains is not because a god says rain, fall from the sky. The reason for rain is more complex than that, and that is logos. — Athena

I don't deny animals posses some degree of intelligence based on instinct, but wouldn't call it reasoning. Reasoning is ability to operate logics, maths and deductive thought processes.

I am sure Logos came from the ancient Greeks, originally to denote language. I must confirm that, not 100% sure off hand.

I could have written that. Every single word .As the rest of your post also

The only thing it offers us, is to show us one more time, how dogmatic people are about their personal beliefs. Whatever it is.
Even well read people get blinded by their lust everyone to agree with their personal beliefs.
That's the only use, arguments like that have. — dimosthenis9

Here we agree again on the fundamental points in philosophy. This is through our pure universal reasoning processes. I salute ~ :grin: :pray:

Asking why is fundamental to reasoning on a human level. Studies of Bonobo indicate they can think abstractly and reason but they do not have the richness of language that we have. Language has made human reasoning much more than the reasoning of animals. The degree of how much more complex our thinking is, depends on our vocabulary. People who have very limited vocabularies can not argue as we are doing. — Athena

It is not just language, but also maths, logic and all deductive knowledge and thinkings, which are the main aspects reason is in charge of.

Animals perceive the reasons essential to their survival and react accordingly, Higher-level animals must learn and the social ones learn from each other. Lions by their social nature have a higher IQ than solitary cats that do not learn from each other, and democracy makes the highest IQ possible because it is inclusive of everyone's thinking. — Athena

I think what animals do for their survival is their instincts, not reasoning. The logos original meaning is for language.

The reason of all things is in the universe as Pop explained. — Athena

Reason for all things is in the universe, because humans explained them via observation, analysis and theorising.

Hum, how is reasoning different from empirical learning? I get that not all reasoning is empirical, but I would not say empirical learning is not reasoning. — Athena

Sure. This is a huge topic, and I am sure there is plenty of online information for it.  But what I normally take their meanings for are,
Reason is unique to humans, and is a faculty of mind, that when presented with problems, it (reason) produces knowledge or conclusions without having to rely on experience. (foundations for logic, mathematics knowledge, deduction)

Empirical knowledge is knowledge or conclusions coming from experiences.  With learning, observations and tests, empirical knowledge increases. (all scientific knowledge, induction)

Information is generated via the above 2x faculties of the human mind working together towards producing tailored, organised and arranged knowledge system about objects and events in the universe which are useful for human life, or meaningful for human intelligence.

I did not say they are bad and stupid... I just think they are brainwashed or similar. Some of the arguments I have according to the books I have read are the following ones: — javi2541997

I didn't say that you did. I was just saying in general, not pointing to anyone in particular. Sorry if it was not clear.

True! But I guess it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as "God"
Facts, arguments, knowledge, statements, axioms, and other forms of logic, cannot fit with religion because those persons are already so influenced by a dogma which is so strong. — javi2541997

Sure. If you think so, then present it as arguments and back it up with reasoning and logic, rather than saying they are bad and stupid. Simply saying "it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as God" doesn't sound to me very much rational either.

To assert that statement, and expect the others to accept as a logical comment, the claimer must define "rational" "god" "a celestial dictator" and "difficult" in full, and demonstrate why that is true and making sense. Before that, I wouldn't accept it as a rational statement at all.

I feel that it is not philosophical arguments just to keep saying religion is bad, god is bad, the empty concepts and religious people are stupid, someone said this and that so it must be true .... so forth so fifth.  These types of comments are not adding anything to the philosophical points and arguments at all, apart from making the claimer look like an unphilosophical bystander devoid of logical sense.

Keep saying that just because some famous philosophers said such and such blah blah ..., or keep listing lots of links and words as if they are meaningful for anything, really doesn't impress me at all in philosophical arguments. At the end of the day, the most meaningful statements are the ones from the claimers own mind and intention out of his / her own reasoning regarding the OP or the topic. It would be good to have the links and quotes, only when they are extremely relevant and meaningful.

If one wants to make a claim or statements regarding the OP, do so, but back it up from a logical point of view with universally valid reasoning and evidential facts on why the claims or statements are relevant and logical and therefore it is true.  That is philosophy.

Without that backing up, all the claims and statements mean nothing more than just personal emotional assertions and pleas which will be seen as the claimer's blindly ardent propagation of dogmas and prejudices to the others for some peculiar personal motives.

Suggesting and accusing the other posters for making up cliques or ganging up just because their views were similar to each other, or making emotion filled irrational comments in the discussions do not help either.

Are you trying to say morality doesn't essentially come into religion, only sometimes incidentally? And that the main source of morality has to be direct from reason? — Fine Doubter

I am one of the emotivist, who believes that morality depends on people's emotion, like from G.E. Moore ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/). That makes me a relativist as far as morality is concerned. So that leaves me have very little to say about morality in religion.

In morality, my interest is, linguistic aspect of it .i.e. when one makes a moral statement, I ask if it makes sense to say that. Is it logical to say that? That is all.

I think I said in my original post to the OP, if one asked me, if religion is foundation of morality, I said, it would depend on who you are talking about. There are all sorts and types of theists, atheists and agnostics, who could switch their sides any minute in their life for any unforeseen circumstances or thoughts popped into their minds or whatever the reasons. Moreover, there is no necessary apriori universal law to say that atheists will always act this way in certain circumstances, or theists will always act that way, and same for agnostics. No universal laws at all on these things.

Therefore just being / claiming that one is a theist, atheist or agnostic itself doesn't make or guarantee the being for morally good or bad. I thought that says clear enough about me I am a moral relativist and emotivist, who has not much to say about religion and morality.

Effectively you've just admitted that for you, morality - a nebulous concept that you haven't characterised that has to be tied Gordian-like to another nebulous concept which you have graciously conceded to yourself doesn't have to be characterised - is an empty concept. — Fine Doubter

I have never commented on morality along with religion in my life taking sides one way or the other. My point was, some concepts are inexplicable, and we should accept that. There are plenty of the other concepts which are inexplicable, unprovable, but we accept, because they affect us. Empty concepts does not mean that it is despicable, meaningless and has no value.

Please don't act stupid, you know you wouldn't expect us to actually want to sign a blank cheque. — Fine Doubter

Why do you call it stupid? The reply was tailored exactly to the level of the questions asked, so that it could be understandable to the questioner.

The risk from Dimosthenis9, Corvus and Philosophim is that they will create one more eccentric clique signalling ambiguously (even to themselves) about what they have and haven't bought into. That time is gone, I keep telling you. — Fine Doubter

It sounds like some bitter power hungry poisonous declaration against political enemies. We have been only engaging in a philosophical debate. What clique are you talking about? Is that all you see in the arguments?

Interposing an empty concept as 180 Proof rightly calls it is the exact opposite of the honest logic required. — Fine Doubter

Why do concepts have to be filled? If one is gagging for honest logic (whatever that is), and insisted concept must be filled with something, then the concept had been filled with the concept of "empty". Because it is empty, obviously he was not able to see it looking for something tangible and physical. Object and concept is not same, is it? (hey I better not give out too much hint here.)

Any divinity worth its salt will not give you brownie points for flourishing the lip service you give it. — Fine Doubter

I don't think anyone is here for some brownie points from divinity.

By the way. You answer to the OP with the way I prefer to be done. Specifically to the questions and with no unnecessary words at all. Just the "juice". That's what I appreciate. — dimosthenis9

:100: :pray:

Oh, oh I am afraid we have an argument of conflicting ideas. Every creature on earth must perceive and use information for survival. I also think the planet and sun can share information but that is going too far for "normal people". Our concepts of god are very different when we believe information is in the rock or believe it is only information if a person thinks it. Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. For me, that does not mean there is reasoning being, but that things are as they are for a reason, and it is up to us to learn that reason. Which also leads to a notion of predetermination versus quantum uncertainty.

I so disagree with your reasoning and it is weird how people can have totally different understandings of the same thing. Geologists read the earth and get the earth's story. That is the ability to understand the information that is there. To think it isn't information until we put words to it, is incomprehensible to me. Like oh my gosh, your preception eliminates the reality of animals also perceiving and using information for their survival. I can not think like that because my way of understanding reality is so different from yours.

Wow, science is not blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts. :gasp: Are you one of those people who refuses to wear a mask and get a vaccine? You sure do seem to present their thinking, and this is fascinating to me. How many times do you have to prove to yourself the truth of what science says or do you disregard it all? I think we would be stuck with a very primitive reality if we could not trust what others think. But do you trust the Bible is God's truth? Excuse me, but your line of reasoning reveals a lot about people's completely different senses of reality and what is believable. That makes this thread extremely interesting.

A scientist is not thinking with instincts. Everything is tested and reviewed by peers and then the facts become an agreement on the best reasoning. But it does not stop there. New information will lead to a review of old facts, and that stated fact will be changed if there is better reasoning. Understanding this is very important to understanding democracy. I wait with excited anticipation for your explanation of the way you see reality and if you are a religious person or not. — Athena

Reason is unique to human beings.  It is also a priori. You don’t learn the reason a posteriori.  That is empirical learning.  So you seem to be confused between reasoning and empirical learning from the start. 

I don't believe other species of animals use information for their perception and survival.  They use their instincts, not information.

If you think the controlling force of the universe is reason, then I feel that you are stretching the concept of reason too wide.  The universe works the way it does, because that is what they do, you cannot ask why. Because they will keep silence to your questions. It is humans, who have been observing the workings of the universe, and found the universal laws out of the workings of the universe with the application of human reason, and have been explicating how and why the universe work the way they do.  IOW the universe does not have reason like humans do.  

I repeat (yet again), the universe does not observe, investigate, analyse and work as humans do.  It sounds to me as if you are some shaman or the pegan religious people who believe and propagate vociferously that nature has spirits and souls, and do all the weird funny things,  when you say the universe has reason, and works by reason. 

I always try to tighten the philosophical concepts wherever possible, but you (just like those scientists) seem trying your best widening it, so no wonder we disagree.  

I have been fully vaccinated against covid19, and been wearing masks all the time outside. So I am afraid that your inference is wrong and groundless.

 I could write here how scientists work on their research, projects and find new principles and laws, but it would take up much space,  and also  it would be  off topic for this forum, so leave you to find it out yourself.

what is the difference between a sensation and an intuition (what more is there to an intuition other than sensation?), — darthbarracuda

Can intuition have contents? I often hear about thoughts and sensations have contents, but never came across contents of intuition. Things are supposed to be given to intuition from the external world in CPR, which sounds like intuition is also type of mental process, but could it be storage like memory or a mental faculty of its own?

If one picks out all the bad and negative bits from the past, present from some tiny parts of the whole world, and  predicts the future, then it is natural to arrive at the negativity.

Why ignore the good and positive parts of the world history?  Of course there had been the war times, but there have been more peace times in the history too.  There have been destructions and attacks, but there also had been inventions, creations, buildings, developments, constructions, discoveries, achievements and improvements and caring and good wills too in the world history.

And while there had been destructive wars going on in some parts of the world, there had been parts of the world where nothing like that had ever happened in the whole history.  It would be wrong to say, the whole world was under the destruction and killings of war, when huge part of the other side of the world was in peace and quiet.  

It is like saying, it is raining in my garden, so it must be raining in the whole world, which is logically false.

 If the past was all negative and destructive, then the world would have already gone apocalypse long ago.  But it still keeps going strong albeit with some negativity. Hence logical prediction for the long term future of humanity is positivity.

It is like looking at last year's newspaper, and picking out all the muggings and killings news, and making predictions for the collapse of the whole world, which is illogical.

For my replies to the OP,

1. I think religion should be a personal matter. It is not something to be forced down to anyone's throat saying, this is good, or .. so forth so fifth. If one wants to have religion, let them have whatever religion that suits, and it will make them happy. When the majority of individuals are happy in a society, the whole society would be happier.

Can religion be moral guidance? In theory yes, but in practice, it depends who you are talking to. It is not fair or accurate to accuse or praise a certain group of people in society. There are good atheists, so so ones, and bad ones, so are theists. There are atheists who pretend to be theists, vice versa. Some agnostics will become theists or convince themselves atheists who knows? People change through time.

2. Can anything replace God? No, I don't think so. God is a special concept, and existence that human reason can never prove or understand. Nothing can replace God. Maybe they will try, but will fail or have already failed. In ancient times, life would have been far easy and simple, because people had no internet, no globalisation, no widespread religious scepticism. They believed in God, and God will take care of everything even afterlife in heaven.
Now, people have lost that comfort zone. They fall into pessimism and nihilism and apocalyptic thoughts. When they die, they don't know what will happen to their soul. And even souls exist? Uncertainty. Fear. All these transform to extreme negative world views and depression. Nothing will replace God. Do they need God? I think it is, again, a personal issue. People will only believe in God, if they had personal experience of God or religious events. Otherwise it would be unlikely the faith and beliefs could arise via intellectual or ethical inculcations.

I think Derrida said that the true origin of the message in any book is in the intention of the authors' mind, and speech is a copy of the intention, but writing is a copy of the speech. So writing is a copy of a copy of the original message, hence it is difficult to get an accurate message from the authors via reading the written texts.

I think it is called Phonocentrism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonocentrism)

All this opens the possibility of myriad different ways of interpretation of the ancient texts. In the churches, they do lectionary readings on the bible, which do the reading on the certain book of the bible of a certain chapter on a certain day of the year, trying to grasp more accurate atmosphere of the passage they are reading, and truer meanings of the bible.

Which is why it seems to me that the Bible left on it own doesnot give us a faith or religion. It gives us innumerable ones. Even the Catholic claim that their Church interprets for them is based on their interpretation of the "pope in the Bible" stuff in order to have something to start with — Gregory

Sure. I agree with your point. I have never looked at the Bible as a religious text only. Psalm is a great ancient poetry, and Job is a very interesting fable. And the other books are full of mystic writings, which are interesting too.

I cannot imagine equating what is said in the Bible with the real world affair. There is a huge time gap between the current world and the Bible content to start with. No one knows who wrote them, and whether the books were recordings of the real events at the time, or just mystic storytellings of somebody, or indeed they were messages from God. Who knows?

What is important is, how one could read it now at this time, and manifest some insight into one's own spiritual awakenings, or just enjoy reading and interpreting from a literal point of view, or pick out some wise verses and use them as getting some motivations in daily life. The options are much flexible.

There are academics who are studying the ancient text from Hermeneutic point of view in linguistic studies, which is also interesting in its own merit.

I would be interested in learning the old Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic words in the bible, and that's what I meant by the literal understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with matching the contents of the bible with the real world events or happenings, and drawing some bizarre analogies from them.

I think interpretations of the Bible are bound to be subjective, and different to each individual. In that sense, it could be classed as the existential philosophising in nature.

The contents of the Bible is about the stories in ancient times. Any suggestions trying to verify or prove the contents along with modern sense of science and facts would be an incredibly irrational mind or attempt.

After good understanding on a literal basis (etymological basis), readers could go on to interpret it in faiths or spirit level, or in allegorical or literary aspects. It is up to the reader to veer their interpretations to the directions they want to pursue. But one thing clear would be that the interpretation is likely to be personal and subjective due to the depth and richness of the content of the Bible.

How the readers come to their interpretations of the Bible would demonstrate the reflection of the reader's psychological and mental states. Why does the reader or interpreter view the verses in the way he / she does? Why does he / she come to that interpretation rather than otherwise? It tells more about the reader and interpreters' spiritual and mental makeup / history than the Bible verses being quoted or interpreted in many cases, and that is why it could be regarded as Existential philosophising in some sense I suppose.

Perception is a precondition of existence. You don't need my perceiving you to be able to exist. You exist on your own self, because you just do. Same with existence. Existence is a precondition of perception. How can the two entities be preconditions for the other? Because they are not two. They are one. The precondition does not need the other action to happen, or the other entity to exist, because it is already there as one.

How about this, information is what is. A geologist can read the earth's history in the rocks. Information is everything in the universe, and our ability to perceive and understand it is growing, but thinking information is what we possess instead of what there is to learn, is a mistake — Athena

As I have said before, I will say again. The rock for the geologist to study is just some physical substance with molecules and particles. The geologist will break it and look inside of the rock, and look into the patterns and shapes of the interior of the rock to come to some conclusion on how old the rock is, and what type of rock it is. OK. I don't think that is information in the rock at all. It is just a physical entity with the observable property for the geologist. And the geologist has observed it, and constructed the intelligent data about the rock.

When the observed data had been established with the analysis and expertise of the geologist into some sort of useful and intelligent and organised data, we could call it, then information. But what is just in the rock itself prior to that process is not information. I would like to draw the line in that.

It doesn't matter what all the other scientists or writers are saying in their books and websites about these things. We philosophers shouldn't be blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts without the critical philosophical analysis based on our reasoning. I don't think the physical processes and how they do these things are even in the slightest interest of philosophy. The detailed knowledge on the physical process and structure of the instructions are the topics of science, not philosophy. Philosophy does not go to the fields, observe, investigate and analyse the physical processes of the objects in the universe. Its operations are performed on the abstract concepts on the objects by reasoning.

Philosophy must be able to point out these irresponsible uses of blurred concepts by the scientists who are borrowing and mixing the abstract concepts by their instincts. IOW Philosophy shouldn't be brushed under the same carpet as those sciences, because Philosophy is a different subject in nature and its operations from all other subjects. It's duty is to criticise and clarify all the abstract objects and concepts in the universe.

And churches filled with old seminarians force-fed their Greek who now want nothing to do with it, having never really learned it nor experienced its pleasures as such. Or again in short, patience - and some persistence. — tim wood

Many English words originate from the ancient Latin and Greek words, and there are myriads of interesting words with the roots in the Bible. And then there are the old Hebrews and Aramaic words in it too. To me, it would be the linguistic and historical richness along with the mystic ancient wisdom, which make the Bible interesting reads.

Interesting how?

Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text. — baker

The Bible is not just a religious text. It is linked to ethics, literature, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. The Bible is also a huge topic for Philosophy of Religion. Some books in the Bible such as Psalms and Job has huge significance in Literature, and people read and study them for the literal merits. There is no restrictions saying, only the religious people must read the Bible.

IOW, you're someone who wants to read and understand the Bible on his own terms, quite cut off from the religious tradition it is part of.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?? — baker

Many people are interested in the ancient texts be it bible or literature, because they are interesting in many ways.

I am confident that actual religious people will say it's the other way around. — baker

Sure maybe. I was not talking about the religious people specifically, but general readers like me who are not religious, but is interested in the hermeneutical understanding and interpretation of the ancient texts, which happen to be the Bible.

It is vital to read the Bible in the right spirit, with faith and humility.

Understanding specific old words like "ephah" is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Without the right spirit, one can be a scholar in ancient languages, and still miss the point of the ancient text. — baker

It was just a simple example to say how the words in the bible are rich in their meanings. I believe it is important for one to know them, if they are serious on their interpretation and understanding on it. Without the basic knowledge of the literal meanings, one cannot progress to the other levels, be it faith or spirit.

Category error? Perception is something done by that which exists. It's like saying rotation itself is earth. Try again — TheMadFool

It is not category error at all. Both are abstract concepts. If you think existence in this case is some physical entity, that would be a logical hallucination.

Or in short, learning a language only to read a book, especially this book, is a waste of time. — tim wood

I was on my way learning the Greek language recently, but stopped due to lack of time. I felt it would be advantageous even to be able to read the Greek words which often appear in the English philosophical text books. Will return to studying it again soon as reminded by this post today :)

Yes you could be right, learning the language in full just to read the Bible could be too much time and effort. But if one had time and linguistic ability to do so, it would be nice to be able to read it in Greek too. Some of the Greek words in the Bible could be crossing with some of the philosophical concepts often appearing in the ancient Greek philosophical texts and also in Heidegger's writings, to which could be cross referenced, and help understanding the both subjects on a deeper level.

Sure. Interesting book indeed. The Bible has many Hebrew and Aramaic words, it seems a must to get the dictionary ready all the time when reading, even at the literary level. I am not knowledgeable, but would imagine it would be immensely richer and interesting to be able to read it in Greek too.

It would be difficult to imagine that one can understand the Bible without knowing the rich meanings of the old, exotic or even plain words in it, when it even says that God has given the language, so that men could study with it their way to know him.

“But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he has committed a tenth of an ephah [3] of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. " - Leviticus

ephah
/ˈiːfə/
noun
an ancient Hebrew dry measure equivalent to the bath (of about 40 litres or 9 gallons).

frankincense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/5-11.htm