Belief without the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2012, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 08:04 PM by free2011.)
RE: Belief without the Bible
(08-01-2012 06:59 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Free.

The Bible is not a document of fact. Some people might snigger when they read that, but I'm being quite serious. It is a chronicle of revelation. Revelation is a different knowledge source than scientific testing. At the end of the day, the Bible is not evidence in the empirical sense, it is revelation.

When you say that things are explained better now, you are demonstrating a cultural bias. You believe its better, but I doubt you could provide a single empirical study that would support that claim. I'm not saying it's shit, but if we're professing the merits of science, then all bias and assumption should be eliminated.

But you hit the nail on the head. You'll never understand it because you give primary value to empiricism. Those who use the Bible as their basis for reality (and not all Christians do that, but to those who do) revelation is given primary value. So when you ask them "how do you know" they say, "because it was revealed and I have the documentation of that revelation right here."

It's apples and oranges.

Not only that, but to a lover of evidence, revelation seems cockamamie and to a lover of revelation, evidence seems false. Chyagonnado?

So to answer your question, there never has been any evidence. There has only ever been revelation. The Bible merely chronicles it. If there was no Bible, meaning there was no chronicle, then no, they wouldn't have their revelation. If there was another chronicle or a living chronicler, then they'd still have it.

The conflation of the two ideas is likely the result of bitter argument.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Thank you, Matt. I appreciate the thoughtful and honest dialogue.

Isn't revelation God revealing what is true or factual?

So modern scientific evidence shows that Homo sapiens are the result of millions of years of evolution, however, the Bible claims Adam and Eve are the source of our existence. Which do you believe and why?

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 08:08 PM
RE: Belief without the Bible
Hey, Free.

Personally, I'm a Darwinist. That about sums it up. How bout you?

Peace and Love and Empmpathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: Belief without the Bible
I get the feeling that people also cite things like coincidences as "evidence" as well. I believe there may be a thread on this somewhere around here, but basically people don't really understand what odds are. So, when you say something has a 1 in a million chance, it is not impossible but it is unlikely to occur very often. Of course even that last statement is subject to the time fame we are talking about. Take the lottery and its astronomical odds but instead of a drawing once a month, do it once a minute. Your odds don't decrease but the absolute number of winners per year is likely to increase. These types of "evidence" are cited by the faithful as examples of something impossible happening, commonly called a miracle. People don't seem to be willing to admit that coincidences do in fact occur.

Relating to the coincidences I mentioned, the Broncos just beat the Steelers and that too will find its way into the "evidence" bin since Tebow is openly religious. Once again, people overlook the contribution of the other players and the poor play of the Steelers in order to make concessions for a football "miracle."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 10:31 PM
RE: Belief without the Bible
(08-01-2012 08:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I get the feeling that people also cite things like coincidences as "evidence" as well. I believe there may be a thread on this somewhere around here, but basically people don't really understand what odds are. So, when you say something has a 1 in a million chance, it is not impossible but it is unlikely to occur very often. Of course even that last statement is subject to the time fame we are talking about. Take the lottery and its astronomical odds but instead of a drawing once a month, do it once a minute. Your odds don't decrease but the absolute number of winners per year is likely to increase. These types of "evidence" are cited by the faithful as examples of something impossible happening, commonly called a miracle. People don't seem to be willing to admit that coincidences do in fact occur.

Relating to the coincidences I mentioned, the Broncos just beat the Steelers and that too will find its way into the "evidence" bin since Tebow is openly religious. Once again, people overlook the contribution of the other players and the poor play of the Steelers in order to make concessions for a football "miracle."

People's inability to properly appreciate probability is a major problem with their understanding of science in general, and evolution in particular.

I have some familiarity with a group that has beliefs that I find not entirely rational - one of their sayings is "There are no coincidences" which is used to give significance to what are pretty clearly coincidences.

Our human brains/minds have likely evolved to do precisely that. It is a "good trick" that has survival value. The scientific method and mathematics are tools we use to tame that tendency.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: